Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235

The Pirate Bay

[[1]] - TPB is now likley to be blocked in the UK. This means that some citations will become difficult for UK based Wikipedians to confirm

The current links to TBP in Wikipedia are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.thepiratebay.org

I've removed some links to TPB already :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sfan00_IMG typically in articlespace, I've got no objections to admins carefully reviewing these removals.

The number of clearly 'bad' links is tiny though.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got concerns about these links in general. For example this citation doesn't even support the material it is a citation for. I suspect some of these links are spam. The one Sfan00 IMG removed in this diff is another example. Material isn't supported, but it's a torrent to download the copyrighted track.--v/r - TP 22:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Sfan00 IMG planning to remove offline cites to foreign newspapers that are "difficult for UK based Wikipedians to confirm"? Exactly what's the point of this knee-jerk reaction? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Offline Cites to Journals aren't problematic. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, so ignoring the problem that they might not source what's claimed, why are you removing cites just on the basis people in one country may have difficulty confirming them? Since you spectacularly missed the point of what I just said.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That confuses me too. I can understanding removing the links on the grounds that they make us guilty of contributory copyright infringement, but removing a link from a userpage on the grounds of "Removing Piratebay link - Blocked in UK" doesn't make sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What the what? There is no way an editor should be removing links on userpages based on that reasoning. Also, I agree with asking why the user would be removing valid links/citations in articles based on this same reasoning(may be blocked in the UK). That is not up to any specific editor to decide and, if it's not Wiki policy, is itself a violation. Dave Dial (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just used a scholar source that costs $50 to read. Maybe I should remove it because some wikipedians might not be ready to pay that amount? Or how about books that don't have preview in google books (and are not available in pirate websites), should I stop using those because they are difficult to verify for some wikipedians? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We should definitely be removing most of these for linking to copyright violations, but not for being inaccessible in the UK (although being illegal to possess might be a grounds). MBisanz ^talk 23:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'll revert the user space link you mention. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG, I looked at a few removals and they look OK. People complain because you are copy/pasting "blocked in UK" in most edit summaries, you make it sound like a knee-jerk removal. use "copyright violation" for edits like [2]. Use "primary source" for [3]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is utterly ridicolous. We're not UK-based and there is no reason to remove links based on the UK status. I've reverted your removals when they were unjustified (several were just irrelevant/pirated stuff). For what it's worth, TPB has been blocked in Italy for years, and I didn't go around remove the links then. This is just utterly silly. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted a few my myself based on consensus here, I've also noted in the edit summary that one appears to be public interest (and is as far as I can see PD-US Gov in any event). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to pirated stuff should be removed, see WP:ELNEVER. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Reinstated items are not linking to 'pirated' material, hence the revert. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm satisfied that you get the gist of the complaints here, and most of your removals were justified for various reasons other than the one being complained about. In any case, good luck and happy editing. Dave Dial (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also created {{CensoredLink}} Although the wording is more polite in tone than some people might want ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to switch the pirate bay links into direct magnet links, this avoids the issue of linking to a possibly censored site. At the end of the day that is how the Torrent is hosted on TPB anyway. It's entirely possible a site may disappear, but the magnet link is static. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #7. We have more editors who self-identify as furries than we do readers who have clients installed on their computers that can digest a magnet link. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Except TPB currently only offers magnet links themselves. So if the purpose is to provide a link to the torrent all linking to TPB does is add an extra click :) So to take on your reasoning; per ELNO#7 we should switch to using magnet links, as TPB is blocked in some countries and therefore the torrent is currently less accessible than it could be. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the majority of our links to the present TPB site are not actually to torrents. And ELNO#7 strongly discourages linking to torrents regardless of whether it's over http, magnet, gopher or anything else for that matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This ELNO#7 is about media inaccessible to users. Torrents are not inaccessible! Many people have the software already, and if not, getting it is as easy as a free download of μTorrent. In fact, in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Who's censoring this stuff?, I found a torrent to be more accessible than the Commons file. It took a request for expert assistance to point me at a download manager that could get .ogv video off the Commons server after 34 lost connections, whereas I was able to download and watch the torrent on my own with no problem! Wnt (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That said, ErrantX's suggestion to use magnet links directly makes some sense. While it is distasteful for Wikipedia to set itself up as a copyright-censored torrent tracker alternative to TPB, politics must take a back seat to Wikipedia's top priority of getting the reader to the WP:EL-compliant sources with the least amount of trouble. Though it is also time to make sure we give Britons good coverage of the alternative methods of accessing material from the UK, such as the VPNs Pirate Bay mentions. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)

I recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination), a lengthy and contentious deletion discussion as keep, with a lengthy rationale. As I expected (what with the nature of the topic), an editor has disagreed with my closure and has begun a discourse with me at User talk:ItsZippy#Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination). I've given further explanation of my actions to him there, but I think it would be helpful for another administrator to review my closure; I have said that I am willing to accept an alternative if others think that would be necessary. Could someone have a look and give me their opinion, please? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is like forum shopping your close - please just address the issues and request raised on your talkpage - Youreallycan 20:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's probably because of that that he's asking his colleagues. It's probably therefore the right thing to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not correct procedure at all - if an administrator is not confident of his own close without asking other administrators to comment then clearly he should not have closed that or for that matter any other discussion - especially when they are aware the discussion is contentious Youreallycan 22:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:: Hi, I'm ItsZippy. I am 18 years old. Ah, Wikipedia, always improving. Nice to check in and get reminders of how this encyclopedia is administered.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So ad hominems are the word of the day? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem. I have mentored many young journalists in my career (all of them over 21 when starting out). Some went on to be brilliant, some were washouts. None of them were qualified to exercise editorial discretion, in any capacity, without years of work and training. The fact that you have 18-year-olds running around casting nonsensical super-votes when any adult professional editing an encyclopedia would say: "The dog story? A graph or two in the Romney election campaign article" and move on. This is an entrenched, deeply harmful systemic problem and yet another reason for qualified professionals to stay away. There is nothing ad hominem about pointing out that untrained teenagers should not be making these kinds of judgements, on (unfortunately) the most frequented online resource for knowledge. (I know, it will never change. But sometimes I can't help pointing out folly when I see it). Ah, and before someone says "grownups are incompetent too sometimes" let me save you the trouble. Some mature people are unqualified. No 18-year-olds are qualified.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may say (speaking as an "untrained teenager, who knows, maybe I should be seen and not heard), "pointing out that untrained teenagers should not be making these kinds of judgements" is exactly what constitutes an ad hominem argument and a silly one at that. In any case it's just ridiculous to assert that being any given age must make you inept at making judgment calls. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"None of them were qualified to exercise editorial discretion, in any capacity, without years of work and training." Really, its the pathetic journalists who've written 100s of stories about Seamus that are to blame here, not the 18 year old who has paid attention only too well to what journalists are telling us.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You illustrate my point very well. Journalism is, largely, ephemera. The hot, the new, what people are talking about right this second. The decisions I make at my newspaper about what we publish in the daily are very different from the decisions I make about what we publish in the weekly. And the decisions about what is an encyclopedia topic are different still. Judgement, maturity, and discretion are what inform the process. Adolescents (and their adult fellow travelers) who read a newspaper article and feel that "tells" them an encyclopedia article should be written (based on transient ephemera) are precisely the problem. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, though I do not think the problem is particular to young people. The wider culture informs us all that the ephemeral has infinitely greater weight than it does in reality. 24/7 news stations might be far the most obvious symptoms of this disease but they are most certainly not the worst. Moreschi (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if this were one newspaper article on an ephemeral subject, you might have a point. In this case, we're talking about 100+ articles over at least five years. While we all have our own views of what an ideal encyclopedia would cover, admins are not given the freedom to close discussions based on their personal views--they're required to close based on our guidelines, which is what the admin in question did. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Again with the "adolescents"... Judge people on the decisions they make, not their age. There's simply no reason even to refer to it, for it to every come up in a discussion of this nature. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook when he was only 20 years old. Suhas Gopinath founded a company and became its CEO when he was only 14 years old. If someone can handle CEO's job at the age of 14, then ItsZippy, who is much older, can easily handle the role of a Wikipedia admin at the age of 18. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It had better be an extraordinarily sharp 14-year-old admin, wise far beyond his years, before I even had to question his or her age. I've got t-shirts older than that. 14 years old and making life decisions? Really? Scary stuff, folks... Doc talk 05:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What a strange false comparison. I am not sure how running a business compares with adhearing to objectively looking at political issues, and if the movie "Social Network" is even close to reality, Zuckerberg would make a terribly biased admin. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Zippy, here's my 2 cents. The plus:fantastic closing statement. The minus: absolutely inverse "decision" than was possible based on the arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

+1. Also, if I may, a small suggestion: It'sZippy, your mop is still somewhat new. It may be a good idea to avoid the particularly contentious decisions for the moment, until you're a bit more comfortable handling it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-admin comment, with caveat that I participated in the AfD). I think that the close was reasonable (and far from "absolutely inverse"), and that you explained it very well. I also think that you handled the complaints at your user talk very considerately. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm guessing this is going to wind up at DRV anyway, but here's my two cents - decently argued close, but I think it's a horrible decision that misses the big picture. We have an article on Mitt Romney's dog. Not the dog controversy, the actual Dog Itself. Jesus H Christ. I'm sorry, but if that close doesn't represent a facepalm moment as far as Wikipedia's claims to be a serious encyclopedia are concerned, I don't know what does. Moreschi (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A few years ago we had a political party make a statement that the governing party leader ate kittens. It became a big election kerfluffle. I don't think we have an article about said kittens. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That's because there are no reliable sources to prove that the kittens existed or were eaten :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I might just grit my teeth and howl in pain - but ultimately accept - an article on the dog controversy, but one on the actual dog itself is a joke. It's generally accepted that when someone/something is notable for one event only and has no chance of having an encyclopedic biography they are incorporated into the article on that event. Madeleine McCann, Ian Huntley and so on are redirects for perfectly good reasons. But no, while this is a bad close I do not think it is a call-for-desysop-and-call-him-a-terrible-person close. Moreschi (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't read either the article or the afd so I'm not commenting on their content (I might do so later, if I have the time and stomach to read the things). But this dog is now quite famous and it would have surprised me if we didn't have an article about it. We've had Bo (dog), Barney (dog), Buddy (dog), Socks (cat), etc. for quite a while. So the deletion attempt on Seamus offhand sounds tendentious, regardless of whatever wikilawyering may have framed it. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think it's a perfectly reasonable close, well grounded in policy. Moreschi is free to promote a guideline on the notability of dogs. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I said in the AfD discussion that it should be renamed from the dog to the incident, per WP:BLP1E. I was only half-joking, because it really is a problem over multiple pages that we name articles for animals, when they are really about events that happened. BLD1E, anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  Well, BDD1E in this case. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  The article title is kind of peripheral to the topic coverage, and if there's battling going on then the problem is with the editors rather than the topic. FWIW, noticing just now that Laika (sort of the ultimate in BDD1E's) is a Featured Article was one of the increasingly rare moments that made me proud of Wikipedia. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree with BWilkins and Moreschi on this one. 28bytes (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think some of my colleagues here are taking a hyper-serious view of things. WP will not be a laughing stock for covering what newspapers cover. (What people laugh at us about are the sort of topics people here think important, but newspapers do not cover.) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed. Newspaper folk know that those pesky lanthanides and crab grasses are not newsworthy, and we should be rightly ridiculed for any thinking that encyclopaedicity and newsworthiness are synonymous. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm with Moreschi here. Scientific commentary on a dog Mitt Romney owned in 1983? The mass media are aiming for the lowest common denominator, as a purported encyclopedia we should aim much higher. Kevin (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I concur with BWilkins and Moreschi here. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think it is ridiculous that we have decided to delete Obama Eats Dogs, which is basically a right wing attack on Obama, but kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination) a left wing attack on Romney. Wikipedia's editor base clearly leans to the left, but I would have hoped that we could have put our political biases aside and make a fair decision regarding both articles... Both have received ample media coverage and pass the General Notability Guidelines, so there is really no excuse. Monty₈₄₅ 02:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

False equivalence works better in the mainstream media than on wikipedia. On wikipedia, we're just haphazard. Yes, most of the world is "biased" against the American far right, perhaps that influenced the outcome.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I took part in the AfD discussion, and I thought that ItsZippy did a very good job with a difficult issue. He actually read through all the arguments, and wrote a detailed response that explained his conclusion based on Wikipedia's policies. That's what a closing admin is supposed to do. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS states, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." If an editor does not like the outcome, they have every right to go to deletion review, but ItsZippy did nothing wrong, and I think this is just a case of "I just don't like it" syndrome. Debbie W. 02:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I support keeping the article. It is well-written, well-sourced, and Seamus is arguably the second most famous/notable dog in the US right now. — GabeMc (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with DGG's comment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I would have to question the experience of any admin that would make the following statement. Merging with the Obama dog article, as noted, would not be correct as the two issues are very different in nature. As any person can see the two issues are directly related. The poorly named "Seamus" article is nothing more than a political talking point from the left, pushed by a single journalist for several years. The Obama dog eating story is political response from the right to that talking point. To make the statement that they are very different in nature seems quite odd. Arzel (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I was going to save this for the DRV, but I'll say it now: Admins have some leeway when closing discussions--they're not vote-counting robots. They weigh consensus and strength of argument, and that's what was done here. In fact, I think the closer's rationale was pretty well reasoned--far more reasonable than the ad hominem attacks against him, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly have to agree that ItsZippy came to a reasonable close, and was wise to come here for review. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I cannot find a considerable fault in the reasoning. I still believe the article is not much more than an attack, especially as written. Although the closer felt there was a consensus to Keep even lacking a clear consensus to delete, we still Keep. So I hesitantly support the close. -- Avanu (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Meh - It is becoming clear over the last few years here that to actually get a non-notable hit-piece deleted when the target is hitting a conservative American politician requires a great many dominoes to line up just so. When the inherent bias of most Wikipedia editors plus the I-never-met-an-article-I-didn't-like dogma of others joins forces, the odds are long, and a closer is left with little alternative but to count sheep. Tarc (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reasonable closure by ItsZippy. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I can see a potential reason why ItsZippy would close the AfD that way, but his reasoning was not reasonable, nor did it justify his close. At DrV, I would probably vote to reopen, rather than to revert the close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm just going to point out something that was pointed out by myself, Debbie and others in the midst of that AFD: this topic has been covered by The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, and the Guardian over the period of at least a year in most cases and in some cases even more. That's not an exhaustive list; almost every major paper in the US and many internationally, as well as radio and television, have covered this story. It's not our job as editors to second guess our sources or express disregard for what they consider to be a worthy topic. Our job is to take sources, determine their reliability, and based on what they report, represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by said reliable sources. Significant views on this topic obviously exist; we would be remiss to ignore them. I fully understand that many people here believe that this topic is not worthy of being in this encyclopedia - I don't disagree with a lot of these arguments, but I believe that NPOV should trump all else. SÆdon^talk 09:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I only commented at the AfD in question, since I never vote. But wouldn't it be much better that whenever an AfD discussion exceeds (say) 20 or 30 votes and has lengthy discussion, then let it by closed by 3 admins, not 1. This doesn't happen very often and would not unnecessarily burden the admin who "dares" to close it. I also think that for controversial decisions, the closing admins should be randomly selected. That would remove questions about admins coming in to close something based on their own opinions. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a very sensible suggestion. There's going to be a lot of similar kerfuffle this election season and I strongly recommend we follow this procedure when closing similar AfDs. Moreschi (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with your proposal. Although I think that ItsZippy did a fine job explaning his rationale, having 3 closing admins for contentious AfDs would reduce any allegations of bias or mistake by the admin. Debbie W. 10:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but it might also just lead to a mini-admin debate too. ... -- Avanu (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• As others have said above, (and I do appreciate the effort) - I think the close was incorrect, but appreciate the attempt at both determining a consensus and at providing the reasoning. Political, Religious, and National debates are always going to be difficult for anyone to close, and there's always going to be someone who disagrees with it. I also agree that there will be a DRV in the near future. And the trifecta mentioned above is something I can easily support. — Ched :  ?  10:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• MakeSense64's suggestion, well, makes sense! What a solid idea. Pesky (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • The bureaucracy will expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy! Except it won't. This was, by the arguments above, simply a bad close (even if the closure action itself was exemplary and should be complimented for a difficult situation like this). We haven't enough admins active in closing AfDs already without new procedures being put in place for something as idiotic as head counts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)

If the AfD closure was faulty for some reason there's Deletion Review where disputants can present their case why there was fault in the rendering of consensus from the AfD. Hasteur (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I recommended "delete" and the result was "keep". But I was fine with the close. There's a fundamental flaw in that admins, who are just are just people with some extra tools to implement basic policies, are elevated to being the (only) people who handle complex closure situations. But I don't think that it hurt us here. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the helpful comments made here. I don't have a great deal to add here, really - my reasons for the closure are at the AfD and expanded at my talk page. I am more than happy for someone to open a DRV if they think that is necessary; I'll accept whatever outcome that may have. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

@ItsZippy; I personally think that you handled a tricky one pretty well. And I don't think that we should generalise about people just because of their calendar age, at all. We have some truly exceptional youngsters here in WP, and ageism is not a good way to go. A good 18-year-old Wikpedian is a very different animal from yer-average bog-standard global-population 18-year-old.

@Thumperward, I've noticed, over the recent past, that your patience / understanding quotient seems to have dropped a bit. I feel that maybe you're feeling a bit too WikiStressed? Things got on top of you a bit too much? Have a few nice cool beers, and a Granny-hug, and take some time to do something which makes you feel happy, as often as you can. Pesky (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like a "BLPet1E". ;) Fortunately, BLP only covers living persons - at least, not until dogs start suing for libel. (Probably that gives us about five years - not yet, anyway) Wnt (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Saint Jerome Emiliani Institute

Could someone look at Talk:Saint Jerome Emiliani Institute please - it seems to be an intriguing mix of multiple accounts, copy-pasting and a possible copyvio. Unfortunately I've been too busy in the last couple of days to look into it. Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 22:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The creator of this is from the institute and has permission to make the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Since when does anyone need persmission to make a Wikipedia page? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike

New user Admarkroundsquare (talk · contribs) uploaded a new logo for Round Square and explained at the help desk that he works for the organisation and asked for help updating the article with new information and the new logo. So Orangemike (talk · contribs) blocked him without discussion and slapped an offensive template on his user page.

This seems inappropriate to me. Is this the way admins typically treat new users? Do you, as a group, approve of this kind of behaviour? I've notified Mike of this discussion. I haven't discussed it with him because he clearly thinks it's OK and I'm actually interested in what the admin community thinks. I'm not looking for any action, just opinions (unless there's a pattern of rudeness). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly the appropriate venue for this kind of discussion, Anthony; I am not even remotely offended. My reasoning was that the username Admarkroundsquare was clearly for advertising and marketing of Round Square, and thus was inappropriate. I will readily acknowledge that I am not hospitable towards advertising and marketing in Wikipedia, but did not think my actions were out of line. That "offensive template" was designed by Wikipedia's user interaction gurus, not by me, and is the standard template for spamusernames. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not really blocking the editor, but your attitude in dealing with these people. Which is problematic IMO. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• People with undisclosed but obvious affiliations edit articles like this every day, I see it all the time. If he was less honest, he wouldn't have disclosed it like most. I always like it when editors disclose it honestly.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mike has a particular... view.. of editors associated with organisations or their own biographies - which is that they are bad people, here for a nefarious agenda and must be immediately blocked with prejudice or put in their place. Part of the problem is that block notice (not his fault) which doesn't help explain the issue at hand to what is probably a well meaning individual who doesn't know how things work. But then we also have this from earlier today - Wikipedia:BLP/N#Keith_Gary - in which he bites heavily at a new editor on the basis of reading "my Wikipedia page" as asserting some kind of ownership. I've recently noted Mike's work through a recent AN/I and I have quite a lot of concerns about how he deals with COI, BLP subjects etc. as well as possible issues with content he is adding in his own topic field. An RFC/U might be in order, although it would be nice to see his response to these concerns. -Errant ^(chat!) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

content he is adding in his own topic field???? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We'll deal with that in a moment. But reviewing the block procedures; why did you use a "bad faith" template for an account that has tried (and failed) to update their logo, then asked for help on the helpdesk? Certainly the username was wrong, but why not use {{Uw-softerblock}} in the absence of any actual promotional editing? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... "How do I delete a page from Wikipedia that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo." isn't promotional? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Misguided, sure. Aiming to be promotional. But assuming they can't have WP:NPOV explained to them is a succinct failure of assume good faith. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it would make more sense to wait until they had problematic edits. We're supposed to assume good faith, not shoot on sight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a username block, and the username does contain the name of the organization. The discussion of COI seems relatively neutral. I don't see this as horrible. Possibly a little more tact was in order, but that's arguable.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I will readily concede that I have low tolerance towards paid editors and the entire COI/PR/spindoctor industry (which seems to have us targeted for conquest or destruction, if we don't yield to their demands). On the flip side of WP:AGF, I will point out that it was at my instigation that we created the {{causeblock}} template, for the clueless well-intentioned advocate who creates an account in the name of their cause or not-for-profit organization, but is not spamming Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a simple case of WP:ORGNAME. User had a clearly promotional username and was engaging in promotional activity. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME says:

• Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
• Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. (emphasis not mine)

This editor did not make any problematic edits. In fact, they don't have a single edit in article space. Also, how is a newbie supposed to know about WP:ORGNAME? I've been on Wikipedia for 2-3 years now, and I've never seen that policy before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the guy made it clear that he was here to construct a page for his company. Again, Advertising and Marketing. WP:NOTAD. The fact that you are ignorant of the relevant policy is really quite meaningless. I have been around for around the same amount of time and have known about it for quite a while. Spend a couple months patrolling new pages and recent changes and you'll learn these ropes right quick. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think your response here rather highlights the problem... A new user is always ignorant of policy; treating them as a criminal rather than trying to educate them is simply bad faith. So what if they are here to market their company/organisation - doesn't make them a bad person incapable of changing. I hope to god you don't patrol new pages with that sort of attitude. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This particular block I find to be justifiably "preventative". As outlined before, policy is pretty clear on promotional behaviour and usernames. If the guy is such a "good person", then why don't you go and suggest that he change his username and mentor him on policy? If you're right, then he should warm right up to it. As for myself, I grew tired of NPP about a year ago, to an extent because of PR guys like this one. I'm not buying your line. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, speculations on whether or not an editor is a "good person" or "bad person" are really quite irrelevant. Such wishy-washy subjective labels are not part of the workings of this site. I have never seen a block that says "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because you are a bad, bad person." I am sure that many vandals, POV-pushers, and even banned users are great guys/gals in real life—they just cause issues for the functioning of the project. Character evaluations are utterly meaningless. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not understanding how {{softerblock}} is considered offensive – especially since it starts with "Welcome to Wikipedia", and kindly tells to "please take a moment to create a new account". --MuZemike 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike originally placed {{Uw-spamublock}} on the user's talk page and it has since been replaced with {{softerblock}}, so it was the spamublock template that was referred to as offensive. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see why: We usually do that to direct users who have already made edits to change their username so that they get to keep their contribs when switching to another username (normally via WP:CHU); {{softerblock}} is more intended when there are no contribs under the username (or they have all been deleted) and when it would be easier for that person to simply create another account on his/her own without our assistance, unlike the other username blocks. --MuZemike 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now a non-issue, as the original {{Uw-spamublock}} has been replaced with {{softerblock}}. There is no evidence that the user even saw the harder block template—it was up for less than 24 hours—so the slightly too-harsh response by Orangemike is old news. Orangemike should be forgiven this very minor blip which was only a matter of degree of response. I am 100% supportive of anyone who stands between PR agents and Wikipedia, to make it more difficult to turn the encyclopedia into a promotional tool. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The block and the {{Uw-spamublock}} block notification template were appropriate. Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia, and the username indicates that this was the account's purpose. I do not see the problem here.  Sandstein  17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  You might think that, but that's not what WP:ORGNAME says. If this is the new community concensus, then someone should make following changes:

• Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The block was itself valid. So what would've happened if the guy had a non-promotional username and posted "Hey, this company's logo changed, see the link here", would we have blocked him immediately with a bad faith template? That's where I have trouble with this one. I think we can block, advise them why (and a template does not work well for this) and still accept valid, correct information. Someone says that an article is out of date, getting blocked doesn't mean they're wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to agree with Ultra on this one. I prefer the ErrantX approach much better. I'm not saying the block was wrong - but, if you're not "not hospitable" toward a particular group of new editors, then take a break from that area for a while. No need to wp:bite someone just because they don't know the rules. Personally I think admins. should strive to achieve higher standards than that. The guy/gal wants to update a logo, and we slap him with some "you're outta here" template? We can do better, and we should. — Ched :  ?  18:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly User:Orangemike has declared a strength of opinion in this area that makes his use of tools in the area totally inappropriate - if you can't stay unemotional in a sector then stop policing it - Here is the user Orangemike very recently immediately attacking a user after a very good faith request to contribute a picture after the user opened a good faith thread at the BLPN noticeboard - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Keith_Gary - Youreallycan 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I object strongly to that categorization. The user talked about an article about himself as if it was his MySpace or Facebook page, in language that implied ownership of the article; I firmly stated that the article was just that: an article, not a "page". It is him, but is not his' and is not under his control. That is not an attack in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You can strongly object all you like. Anyone is able to look at that discussion - you started on an attack position not a welcome one - you assumed a lack of good faith - you attacked , you didn't show any good faith or welcome at all - not at all - users can read that discussion and see for themselves. -How can I add photos to my wikipedia page? - did you help them in their question ? - no you didn't, not in any way - Youreallycan 19:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Mike; I think that is the crux of the problem. Because my reading of the comment was "the article about me". You assumed that meant he could control it, which is a lack of good faith - especially as a perfectly reasonable reading of the comment doesn't show that. When users ask for help you should give it to them nicely - not jump down their throats. You categorically & needlessly attacked him. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Lord knows I've had plenty of disagreements with Youreallycan, but he's right in this case. Your response was not at all welcoming or friendly. You have no idea when they said "my article" if they meant "it's an article about me" or if it meant "it's an article I control". You assumed the latter, and not the former. It seems to me that newbie isn't going to be aware of WP:OWNERSHIP and probably doesn't realize that such language can be interpretted to mean ownership. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• The block itself was fine, if a bit too quick. Choosing to use {{softerblock}} would have been much better, but it's not required, It's a judgement call, and not everyone knows about it (or thinks about it, with the automated tools that many people use). I'd just like to point out that this is part of what is something of a campaign over Orange Mike himself (and Cla68, not coincidentally). Making decisions about other users through that prism, and with passions running high, isn't the best way to manage things. At the very least it opens people up, on both "sides" of the issue(s), to criticisms over their politics.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Whatever happened to assume good faith? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • What's to assume? I don't think that I'm assuming anything.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean burying your head in the sand and pretending that nothing is going on. --MuZemike 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly is going on? The only thing we know for sure is that they said that the logo in our article is out of date and the wanted to update it. I checked out their web site and it turns out Admarkroundsquare was correct. tThe logo in our article is out of date. Here's the new one. What's wrong with updating the logo to their current one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"How do I delete a page from Wikipedia that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that as if it contradicts what I said. Let me clarify. The only thing we know for sure is that they said that the logo in our article is out of date and the wanted to update it. What other changes they had in mind, we don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup; and I absolutely agree, Sarek, that they probably wanted to do exactly as you posit. But why does that mean they are not welcome? Do you disagree with any of our policies? I'm guessing there are some you think are wrong, or at least not perfect; but no one wants to block you for it! Because you have had the concept of community concept explained, and accepted it. But what you are advocating is not giving them the chance to have it explained... --Errant ^(chat!) 19:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be "positing" here? I was quoting the editor verbatim. I'm not advocating anything, except not misrepresenting the information we have. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

heh. yes sorry a little sleepy here... consider my comment intended generically, then. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, regardless of what anyone here may or may not desire, "Indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent". This user still has talk page access, and is quite welcome to request a name change (which will likely involve and unblock, but there's nothing wrong with that). AGF can just as easily be applied to everyone in this discussion rather than just a few of the participants.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me draw a comparison - you are on vacation in some country which language you barely speak, looking for a hotel. Eventually you find one and walk in, but once you walk inside and try to ask the receptionist for a room you are grabbed by a doorman and tossed out. Once outside the doorman hands you a note stating that you are not wearing black shoes, thus you are not allowed entry again until you do. Now, what will you do - get some black shoes or be abhorred by your treatment and search for a new hotel?

What i am trying to explain here is that new editors are complete rookies who only just made their first edit, and often don't have a clue what they are doing. Just blocking them with a template message will scare people away - period (Unless they have a specific reason to "get the black shoes" such as marketeers). I utterly detest spammers and marketeers and i am only to glad to throw those out, but all to often we truly lack empathy towards new editors. Note that this is quite a general comment on newbie treatment, though it does somewhat apply in this case as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree. I'd like to see the policy changed so that "automatic blocks" are not issued, basically unilaterally, against users who certain administrators feel have "promotional" user names, and I've spoken out against that in the past on AN/I. That seems like a separate issue though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Excirial, your example would make sense if there was no sign at the door of your hotel. But there is. In English. You walk in anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, there is. But have you recently looked at the sign up page and imagined what it looks like to a new user? It is so riddled with links, text, policies and so on which means that it is easy to miss the sign. How often do you read the entire EULA when installing some software, and did you ever you read the entire manual when you buy something from a store? I am not surprised that editors just see the two "Fill me in" boxes for username and password and ignore the rest.

I don't intend to state that not seeing the rules doesn't mean that they are there. My entire point is how we deal with people who go over the line - a friendly comment or even a softblock and a manually written explanation of the block are vastly preferable over a spamblock. Especially in cases where the editor did nothing to bad so far. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed blocking. --MuZemike 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike should be drawn and quartered. Now that I have your attention, everyone seems to be quoting WP:AGF without assuming any good faith on the part of OrangeMike; saying he "attacked" a new user instead of considering the fact that he was following what he thought in good faith to be the policy. No permanent damage has been done, and even as an admin who thinks WP:BITE is the worst problem on Wikipedia right now, I don't think any further action is required. The harsh template has been replaced by a more welcoming message, and instructions on requesting an unblock if the user wishes. I think we should also start a new policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the admins. We are human after all, and no one has just straight-up asked OrangeMike if he'll agree to be less WP:BITEy in the future. So....

OrangeMike, could you please agree to be less WP:BITEy in the future, especially if they are posting in the correct venues seeking help? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 06:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Running, I try not to be bitey; but I simply cannot agree to any commitment which would preclude me from blocking blatant violations of our rules. Advertising and marketing by COI editors is one of the biggest dangers to our prized neutrality here, and it's delusional to pretend otherwise in the sacred name of AGF. Nonetheless: I'm already keeping this discussion in mind when choosing between a softerblock and a spamuserblock.

I am already, also, keeping this discussion in mind when encountering folks who genuinely don't understand the distinction between "my page" (which I control) and "an article about me" (which I do not).

I hope some of those who have piled on me will agree to spend more time at the Help Desks and maybe in the Tea Room, helping those noobs you are advocating for. (Yes, some of you already do; it would be obnoxious and unfair of me to pretend otherwise.)

I would also hope that this discussion might lead to some discussion in the appropriate venues about improving the wording of the standard templates, which some of you clearly consider a bit bitey.

I hope this response is satisfactory to those not of a lynch-mob mentality. For those who are of that mind: sorry, I have no intention of going away or of dropping the Mop-and-Bucket with which I have been entrusted. I've been shat upon by the best; I don't frighten easy.

I am, however, weary. I myself would like to go back to trying to improve the content of this encylopedia; I've got several projects I've been neglecting while this discussion dragged on. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a step in the right direction, but please keep in mind that WP:ORGNAME says that you cannot block someone for their account name until after they're had problematic edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought experiment

I was thinking about how to demonstrate the perspective that is eluding some of the commentators here - and perhaps this is it. Imagine that I flicked through your contributions. I expect that, and this applies to all of us here, I could find something that violates one of our policies in some way or other (ostensibly or otherwise). Is it to be assumed you, being regular editors, know policy and therefore are deliberately violating it? Should I block you and whack a template on your userpage? Or is it more likely that an explanation would be of effect? This is the core of the issue; as regulars Wikipedia is as natural to us as breathing. To a new user - yes, even one who wants to make their article say nice things - it is a black box. By assuming the worst of faith & dumping an aggressive template note on their page (which they probably don't even know exists, yet) we don't even make an attempt to educate them, we just decide they are unsalvageable. What's the response? They are upset, create a new account and try to "delete" the article. They contact OTRS. They decide Wikipedia is obnoxious and tell their friends. Seriously, the way we treat newbies is disgusting. I'm sorry to Mike that he has become the current focus, because he is far from the only guilty one, but he is a strong example of one of our most pressing problems. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so our Standard Operating Procedure should be then, if we find usernames that don't fall within our policy, should be to tell the user to change his/her username and/or establish an account, and if he/she doesn't, then ignore the problem? --MuZemike 19:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure how I would be suggesting that... if we take this case I gave you an example (by doing it) of what we should be doing - which is politely blocking the username, explaining why and then trying to answer the question posed. Ignoring the problem is silly, as is stamping around all over the place. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the next question should be: Is a block ever a polite action? Because from what I gather above, the answer seems to be "no". --MuZemike 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I invite those who complain so much about our treatment of newbies to pop over to UAA and see what's actually going on there. If you don't like the way things are being handled, do it yourself; guess what, after the thousandth SEO upstart tries to spam about his company, your patience will run thin. We have a username policy for a reason, and people who violate it should change their usernames. It's not unlike requiring someone to put on a shirt before they walk into an establishment with a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a bad analogy, because we don't have a sign of that sort. What we do have is a global invitation to edit... A lot of the UAA stuff is obvious, I agree, but many (such as this one) are not. It would certainly be worth having a discussion about improving the default templates to assume better faith, certainly. @MuZemike; of course a block is impolite, but often that is the only option. My argument is that it shouldn't be the first option if the situation doesn't seem utterly lost from the get go. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Have no sign for that? Good — so make one. Should be easy. Oh, strike that. I just logged out, and looked at the "create an account"-page. There is a sign. Maybe make it bolder or colored. Or blinking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

From the "create an account" page:

"Username policy prohibits usernames which are promotional, misleading, or offensive:

• promotional usernames:

• containing existing company, organization, group, or website names (including non-profit organizations)"

There is a clear warning. This isn't some obscure guideline, this is explained up front when a user creates an account. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Might be nice if the process to change a username was made easier by programming. If this issue is one that some newbies feel bitten by, and administrators get tired of seeing, then a more 'self-serve' process, where admins can check a box or something might cause fewer problems for editors and admins also. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

reality is that, as I suggested above, you could make the note blinking yellow with stars in 70pt, some people never follow it, either because they are dumb, illiterate, or just willfully ignoring it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We can assume good faith, but I don't think we can assume people aren't stupid, illiterate, or ignorant. Some people have an amazing capacity to impress, not by their feats of strength, but by their ability to take something that seems foolproof and still find a way to mess it up. We do hope admins at least have one eye (figuratively), in order to lead the nation of the blind if needed. -- Avanu (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen much sense in that part of the username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations. It's a simple fact that we have lots and lots of editors who edit on behalf of their company or organization – often in a problematic way, often not; we couldn't stop them doing that even if we wanted to, and at present we don't actually prohibit their editing as such. It strikes me that as soon as we're stuck with working with these editors, we should actually encourage rather than prohibit their announcing their affiliations in their names. I've often found blocking such account to have been quite counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are difficulties and complications in keeping track of who is entitled to use a company or organization name. If Bob works for FooCorp, and creates User:Bob(FooCorp), what happens when Bob moves to another company? Do we close the account? Do we rename it to User:Bob(NewJob)? Does FooCorp's HR department give it to Carol, and rename it to User:Carol(FooCorp)?

Who actually holds the copyright for the submissions made by the account, Bob or FooCorp? How do we know that Bob really works for FooCorp, and is entitled to represent them in public? Who gets to make the call on right-to-vanish questions?

Do we want to be in a position where the Foundation has to deal directly with FooCorp's legal department?

Sure, we probably could hammer out some sort of policy on these issues, and then ignore it to try to come up with new ideas on the fly when we found the edge cases where it broke, and be embarrassed when some random admin was a dick to a charitable organization and the incident made the papers on a slow news day, and then end up with all the bitter arguments and recriminations that would necessarily fall out of the whole mess—but it's not worth our bother. We deal with individuals, not with corporate entities, and we expect usernames to reflect that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's super clear

What Errant and others are trying to tell the admins is that POLICY states you need to try to resolve a problem without resorting to the use of tools, leading by example, and behaving in a respectful, civil manner. Using language or taking actions that feel like an attack on someone who is most likely 100% ignorant of policy is not in line with policy itself. It would be like a police officer shooting a suspect and later saying "I could just tell he was going to shoot me", even if he was just standing there and the officer hadn't said one word, and the suspect didn't have a gun drawn. I'm puzzled why those of you who are administrators can't simply say "yes, that is what policy says, I will recommit to being civil, and lead other editors by example". Rather what I often see is a zillion excuses why it simply isn't done. Every one of us understands that reality won't allow a perfect world, but there's no reason for admins to avoid saying, "OK, I see your reasonable point, I'll do my best." We end up in this long nitpicky discussions because of that simple lack of humility and human-ness that would put the issue to rest instantly. -- Avanu (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

hm. So what you're saying is that only admins are supposed to read policy, and are then under the obligation to explain to everybody else individually what the policies are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Without question Admins should know policy. But so should editors. Take another pass at what I wrote above; you're very much missing the point. -- Avanu (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, admins SHOULD know policy; even worse when the person who doesn't understand the policy is a director of a major chapter. Un-fricking-believable. How does one de-appoint? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blocking a wikipedian in residence is pretty crass though, don't you think? My concern is that our instant-block practice just hides COI rather than makes it go away. Secretlondon (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins, actually in looking at that diff, it shows not really an ignorance of policy in that he's not aware of it, but an ignorance of policy in a WP:IAR way. Look, in the end, why put the letter of the law over the spirit of the law? There are times when it seems like the bureaucratic mindset has pushed away the friendly neighborhood spiderman mindset. Peter Parker would be our greatest admin because he knows 'with great power comes great responsibility', and without an honest recognition of one's own weakness, you limit yourself. -- Avanu (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, it's you and the blocking editor and a whole bunch of editors on this page who seem to be ignorant of policy. Seem to be, but the policy, don't block has been pointed out several times here. So I don't know what's going on. Do you agree that the policy says we should discuss the name with unproblematic editors, and encourage them to change it? If you do, can you concede that you've been misreading policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Practice is generally nuke from high orbit if there is a hint of corporate editing. Username vios pick up all the COI ones, and we have a block first _practice_ Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My page

One of the things that makes Wikipedia seem unfriendly to outsiders is that the use of plain English ("my page" or "our article" being shorthand for "the article about me, or the company I represent") triggers an immediate assumption of bad faith: the article subject must be claiming WP:OWNERSHIP of said article. Well, they may be, but probably they're just trying to communicate in plain English because they didn't realize that the "Wikipedia way" of referring to an article requires you use a bit of convoluted speech. "The article about me" is OK, "my article" will get you into trouble. 28bytes (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Another way to put it is: profound lack of empathy -- inability to remember that everyone here once didn't know squat about Wikipedia and made equivalent "mistakes". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence this rather old essay of mine (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Clearly Mike breached WP:ORGNAME here, but clearly some ORGNAME/COI editors are a nightmare. I deal with obsessive fringe theory POV-pushers a lot, so probably have an inkling of what he has to deal with. In that light, I'm more than happy to cut him some slack.

I'm disappointed though by the response of most of the rest of you. He did cross the line in terms of civil behaviour and policy. This was an opportunity to quietly remind him of WP:ORGNAME and WP:BITE, and gently encourage him into line. A couple did, but most of his peers supported him in his denial that he'd done anything wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The message I use is:

if the name you have used includes or refers to the subject of the article, you must choose another username. As explained in WP:USER, only individuals may edit. When you have a username that is or includes the name of your organization, you imply that you are editing officially, and have a superior right to edit the page. But that is not the way WP works--all editors are considered equal--and your contributions like those of any editor must be justified by sources. I'm sure you do not intend to give such impression, but that's why we have the rule. Therefore, please choose another name. On that user page, you should say whom you are working for.

I do say this for partial names also. I think that partial names also promote ownership,& perhaps our written policy needs to be changed to reflect that.

But I do not block unless they are being uncooperative, and then I word it something like "To ensure you make another account, I am blocking this one." ; since the usernameblock preset on Twinkle defaults to prevent their making another account, it defeats entirely the purpose of our policy on user names, they they should make another one. On the one hand we tell them to do it, on the other we prevent their doing it. It's time to fix twinkle: the default for username block should be a usernamesoft block. This meets the purpose.

Because of the widespread use of Twinkle and the need to keep things in sync, the procedure for changing these templates has now gotten so lengthy --requiring in effect a long period of experimenting with different versions under the guidance of the foundation, where after many months very little if anything has actually been accomplished, that we need to come up with something better ourselves. We have let Twinkle become our master. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. The kinds of tests the foundation people did with some of the templates have nothing to do with the technical needs of Twinkle, and they certainly don't mean WP:BOLD no longer applies to templates. If you want to change the wording of a template used by Twinkle, just change it. I'm sure it's possible, because I've done it numerous times recently. It's only if you need to change Twinkle itself that it may get complicated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely why I've never used any (semi)automated tools or scripts or anything like that on any WMF site, with the sole exception of the nominate-this-file-for-deletion script at Commons. It's not hard to write something out by yourself. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Anthonyhcole's summary, except for how clear the situation is. Orangemike rightly applied "usually blocked", but probably (perhaps) didn't rigorously apply "inappropriately promotional". It seems user asked for help fully in accord with the new brightline. To solve the larger problem, softblock with policy link, rename option, and monitoring is appropriate; and block warning, brightline link, and monitoring is also appropriate. However, I particularly wanted to affirm the observation about Orangemike's rapid ability for self-adjustment, especially compared against the nonspecific category of "some admins I know" (or for that matter the category of non-slack-cutters). Search "orange" at the following link for more evidence of this high mark of his character, as well as significant evidence of a noob-enfolding Orangemike: JJB 15:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins and others

Above, I pointed out to Bwilkins that he and others appear to be either misreading or deliberately flouting WP:ORGNAME. He hasn't responded.

• The policy says:

"This does not prohibit every use of a company, group, or product name as part of a username."

so it is not obvious that "Admarkroundsquare" is a breach of this policy, and yet Orange Mike simply asserts it is a blatant violation of our rules, Wehwalt says "and the username does contain the name of the organization" as though that means there's obviously a problem with the name, Lothar says it "Seems to be a simple case of WP:ORGNAME", MuZemike asserts the name doesn't fall within our policy, Blade asserts the name violates policy, Fut.Perf. says "I've never seen much sense in that part of the username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations."

I'd like Fut. Perf. to point me to the part of username policy that says they can't include names of companies or organizations as part of a username.

• The policy says:

*Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
*Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

which is pretty unequivocal. Applying either {{Uw-spamublock}} or {{softerblock}} is a block. And yet Sandstein says "The block and the {{Uw-spamublock}} block notification template were appropriate," UltraExactZZ says "The block was itself valid," Ched says "I'm not saying the block was wrong," Ohms law says "The block itself was fine."

There is an unambiguous disconnection between policy and practice. That policy seems to be worded as it is in order to expressly prevent the kind of behaviour engaged in by Mike and supported by others here. I don't know enough of the dynamics at NPP or the politics of PR editing to have an opinion as to whether behaviour should conform to policy or vice versa, but clearly your behaviour and policy need to be reconciled. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. When that many admins agree... Doc talk 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If admins are using a procedure "hardblock on sight" that is not supported in guidelines then it needs to be added to guidelines so that users affected by it can a, avoid it happening to them and b, so that they can be pointed to the reason they have been blocked clearly written down for them, - Youreallycan 09:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardblock on sight should not be applied in situations where Wikipedia is not being harmed in some concrete way. Issuing hard blocks for soft errors is out of line with our civility policy. -- Avanu (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This behaviour is not only "not supported in guidelines" it is expressly proscribed by policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The blocking of MonmouthMuseumWales (talk · contribs) (discussed here at RFCN) is another example of an admin going straight to a block without first discussing the issue with a user who has made no problem edits. In this instance the user name was the same as the organisation, so a name change is usually expected, but rather than follow policy and gently explain the situation, the account was blocked. Bwilkins thinks that's fine, and accuses the unblocking admin of misreading [4] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• This sort of thing has been happening for years. It was exactly what happened to me when I started: [5] (and no, JzG never did apologize). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blocking usernames that explicitly promote a company/organization in and of themselves has been long practice here. The policy (WP:UN) is that:

  When choosing an account name, do not choose names which may be offensive, misleading, disruptive, or promotional.

  A username that appears to represent more than one person, or appears to promote a product/company will be blocked. That is appropriate, that is long standing practice. Whether Mike used the right template above is the question but the block and others of this kind are appropriate. Gentle explanation can happen afterwards but users with promotional names will not be allowed to use these (becuase using them promotes what ever it is they are promoting)--Cailil ^talk 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting that line out of context and claiming it says something that it clearly doesn't (i.e. no where in that line does it say anything about blocking the account). Here's the part about blocking accounts:

*Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.
*Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

So, the block was an error. The admin should have gently encouraged the user to change their username. If anyone disagrees, that's fine: start an RfC and get the policy changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* As the guy who designed the much-used {{coiq}} template, I can tell you that we sure as heck are NOT going to RFC every single obviously promotional username. That would be a horrific waste of everyone's time. We have the very gentle {{softerblock}} template for a reason - it's an AGF template. Someone want to create {{SoSoftItsLikeCharmin}} instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that if you disagree with policy, then you should start an RfC on the policy, not the username. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. Bwiklins seems to think that MonmouthMuseumWales and Admarkroundsquare are "promotional". What's promotional about them Bwilkins? They're clearly identifying an affilliation with the organisation, but they're not promotional. It's not MonmouthMuseumrocks or RoundSquareWillSaveYouMoney. Calling them promotional is weird. You can't just "call" any username that incorporates an organisation name promotional as an excuse for not following WP:ORGNAME. Follow that policy or change it to fit your behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire problem is that they are accounts that appear to be the organization's, rather than a person's. When User:Microsoft adds an unsourced fact to Microsoft, it's going to be left alone - because that's the official word from Microsoft itself (I know, it wouldn't, but play along). Thus, the prohibition. In this case, the block came from the confluence of having a username that matches the company AND editing in regard to that company. If the user had gone off to edit articles on hockey teams, no one would've noticed the username problem. My problem with this block wasn't that the user was blocked - he should have been and was - but that no one said why. He just got an angry wall of text, and no answer to the question. When I block such an editor, I template - but then explain below. "You got blocked because you can't have a username that matches the company. So you'll need a new username, which you get by doing X Y and Z. Now, you wanted to update your own page, and you can't because of your obvious Conflict of Interest - but if you show me what the inaccuracies are, we can figure something out." Engaging them, even if they don't end up unblocked, sidesteps all of the bad faith and bad feelings that seem to have come up here. They may respond, they may not - if they do, we get accurate information and (maybe) an editor who sticks around (with a new username and staying the hell away from his COI). If not, I've wasted two minutes of my life. But this seems to greatly reduce the "Wikipedia is a bunch of assholes" factor, which is worthwhile. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I like your attitude, but you're wrong on a couple of points. Notwithstanding what some admins may do, policy allows a username to incorporate a company name (e.g. User:Mark at Alcoa), and allows such a user to add content to the organisation's article. Neither is a blocking "offense;" we appreciate the transparency. Certainly, if they're biasing the article they should be pointed to the relevant policies, and if they continue they should be corrected, blocked if necessary. But that goes for anyone regardless of the username.

In this instance the problem is with the blocking editor. He breached policy and is supported and encouraged in that by Bwilkins and others. I see that they haven't changed the policy yet to conform with their behaviour. If that's not going to happen, they should conform to the policy. It's not a big deal, or even a difficult or complex issue to grasp. The policy says one thing. They're doing another. Now that this has been pointed out, if they continue summarily blocking people for having an organisation name as a username, or blocking people (or threatening to block them) simply for incorporating an organisation name as part of their username, they will be demonstrating contempt for community consensus and should be desysopped. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A point of clarification, I don't believe the example you used is consistent with the username policy which states: "usernames that are specifically disallowed":

Promotional usernames are used to promote an existing company, organization, group (including non-profit organizations), website, or product on Wikipedia"

.

And no, that is not the problem as described in the original AN. It was about a template and a perception of editor conduct in regards to an overzealous nature to these types of usernames as I recall. Not sure if it was actually proven as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What's promotional about User:Mark at Alcoa? It identifies the user's affiliation with the organisation. That's not promotion. That's transparency; something we like. Blocking accounts like that has no basis in either logic or policy.

Not sure what you mean by "original AN". If you're referring to my original post in this thread, I was drawing attention to this very point. The editor was acting diametrically against policy. Personally, I have a problem with that. Particularly when it's an admin, and when it involves blocking editors. Just seems off to me. But it seems it doesn't bother the majority of admins commenting here. I have a problem with that too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if it were promotional, we're supposed to encourage the user to change names, not block them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between a username like "Mark at Alcoa" and "Alcoa". The first clearly identifies an individual which is allowed. The second identifies an organization which isn't. The issue is less about promotion, and more about ensuring that an account represents an individual. This is made pretty clear at WP:ORGNAME. -- Atama頭 16:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge is correct. See also WP:UAAI: "users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username." --JN466 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty much the point. Look at the username and how it reflects a breach in guidelines or policy. "Mark at Alcoa" does not breach any policy, as explained above. Then you have the example of something just without any identification to an individual ("Mark at...") and just "Alcoa", which, as you said would be more about ensuring the account represents an individual and less about promotion...then there is what this username was, "Admarkroundsquare". Which contained both an intent of promotion (advertising and marketing) as well as a specific company. This falls within the existing block policy and the original template could also be seen as simply meaning that new comers are not exempt from the block policy based soley on being new and not knowing the policy as you can read the policy BEFORE you register a promotional username AND we don't know if this editor was already editing with an IP to have even had such experiance while already contributing. While a more subtle warning with the block is better, it is understandable why a more sterner approach was selected and my experiance with Mike's similar blocks is that he has been in the right on all points he has made.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please re-read "users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username", noting in particular the words I have put in bold? Thanks. --JN466 20:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to re-read it. You show clearly that it states "Should" not "They are required" or "Must". Hmmmm. Guess that was not something you thought about?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)signature added by JN466 07:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If a policy says you "should not" do something it really means you ought not to do it. In particular, you "shouldn't" hard-block such users, as then they can't register a compliant account. If they do insist on writing crap, by all mean warn and then block; but don't block after five harmless edits just because of what someone's account is called. --JN466 07:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So, I will ask again for clarification: Do we then inform such users with problematic usernames that they need to change their username, and, if they don't, we just simply ignore the problem? --MuZemike 03:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. If the username is the name of a group and it is being used to edit content related to the group, and after having the problem explained in clear and friendly terms the user chooses not to avoid the topic or abandon the name, it should be taken from them (indefinitely blocked). If it is a shared account, regardless of the name, it should be blocked (again in a clear, friendly, helpful way). If the name is promotional, it should be blocked (again, in a clear, friendly helpful way). Clearly "promotional" doesn't mean "a username that incorporates a group name."

Usernames that are not identical to the name of an organisation, nor promotional, nor a shared account, that simply identify the user's affiliation with a group are good. They are transparent. Something we encourage.

If the username is an organisation name, e.g., User:Alcoa, and it is not being used to edit content related to the organisation, there is no problem. If they are editing those articles, are pointed to WP:ORGNAME, and agree to no longer edit those articles, there is no problem.

The present problem: (1) When the username is the same as an organisation name and it is being used to edit content related to that organisation, the editor should be (per policy) politely pointed to WP:ORGNAME and gently, politely encouraged to either abandon the account or avoid that topic. Presently, they are just being summarily blocked with an unfriendly template. (Even the softblock template is officious.) (2) Usernames that incorporate an organisation name, though permitted, are being summarily blocked as "promotional" or "COI", when they are patently not promotional, and when editing with a COI is not a blockable "offense." Indeed, we encourage editors with a COI to declare it, and incorporating the organisation name in the username is as clear a declaration as we could ask for.

And it goes without saying that if an editor is biasing a topic, and won't conform to NPOV, regardless of the name, they should be blocked, topic-banned or site-banned. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you exactly understand how official organizational accounts work, i.e. not on Wikipedia, but in general (such as with Twitter)? In common practice, a company hires or assigns one or more people to operate this "official company account", and, over time, companies may rotate out people in charge of this account. The problem is that this goes against our policy that accounts are not to be shared. --MuZemike 05:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. If only one user is using the account, it's not that kind of account. But, even if it is only used by one user, User:Alcoa shouldn't be used to edit content related to the organisation, because it could easily be mistaken for such an account. Whether User:Admarkroundsquare is a shared account could be established by asking the question, "Is this a shared account?" and pointing them to WP:NOSHARE and WP:ROLE. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an easy solution to that. They can have accounts like User:Mark At Round Square, User:Jill At Round Square, etc. and can identify the full name of the person who operates the account on the account's user page, if need be with a confirmation e-mail from the company to OTRS just like we do it in other cases where impersonation could be a problem. At any rate, no one should be hardblocked just for having the wrong account name. --JN466 08:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem should not be ignored if the user has a problematic user name (or wants to share an account), and does not respond to the gentle persuasion called for in policy. On the other hand, I would think most users would happily change names once the issue was explained to them. --JN466 08:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

I have raised an unblock request for Admarkroundsquare, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request:_User:Admarkroundsquare. The user is currently hard-blocked, meaning they are unable to create a username policy-compliant account. This is an invidious and abhorrent way to treat people. --JN466 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's not quite true; they could use an unblock request and ask for a new username. But that would require reading the instructions, which didn't work out so well the first time around... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

They had no such instructions, because these had been replaced, by a well-meaning admin, with a soft-block template simply telling them to create a new account. --JN466 23:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam has lifted the hardblock but left the username blocked, which should allow the user to get on with updating the article. [6] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Larger issue unresolved

The larger issue - the disconnect between policy and supporters of OrangeMike's block - remains unresolved. Can someone who supports this block please propose a change to WP:USERNAME? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, this doesn't seem supported by the discussion. It does appear that Mike, while perhaps taking a more proactive response, was within policy and guidelines. I see that the editor that was blocked did make an edit, so the argument that they could not have done anything wrong to warrent a block is incorrect. The actual edit was indeed asking a question at the help desk...HOWEVER that is still an edit and the question asked was basicly asking how to get guidence to make it easier to get the POV results they wanted. This very well could be seen as the direct conflict in context to the promotional username that gave Mike the option as an administrator to make that call and he is willing to block when he identifies the criteria to do so. The danger to the encyclopdia is real and the amount of issues from these types of editors could range from "gaming the system" to outright harrasment of editors and individuals offwiki to those not involved here at all. I have seen it and Mike has seen it and so have many other editors. This has never been about Mike's supporters but the issue of the block he administered. About the template, He made an edit and that was the correct template to use in my view. It gave the editor the chance to take care of the situation right then and there with clear instructions. If anything went wrong it was replacing that template.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The user said that the current page on their company is out of date. I am sure it is. So we have an out-of-date page in mainspace. Does that concern you at all? The ideal solution here is that someone works with the user to update the page in line with policy, not that the user is blocked. And there is assuredly a disconnect between policy and at least some admins' practice. I played a small part in the discussions that led to the present wording of the user name policy. The intention was that this practice of "first shoot, ask questions later" blocking should cease. --JN466 07:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a user informing us in the name of his company that our article on said company is outdated really ought to be punished properly for making such a horrible, horrible POV/COI edit. It might lead to "outright harrasment of editors and individuals offwiki" otherwise, after all. Seriously, how on earth do you jump from a user asking to update an article to throwing around "off-wiki harassment"? --Conti|✉ 11:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: This editor did not make any problematic edits. In fact, they don't have a single edit in article space. Policy is quite clear that such editors should not be blocked. For those who disagree with policy, the correct course of action to change the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have moved to Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME. Maybe close this now? (But don't immediately archive as there are a couple of current discussions linking to this one.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb

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

---

I’d like to propose a topic ban from articles related to Christianity for User:BruceGrubb, as suggested by several editors at the end of a thread on the Original Research Noticeboard: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory. BruceGrubb has problems with original research, misrepresentation of sources, the use of poor sources, and biased editing (largely in the promotion of fringe theories and fringe viewpoints on mainstream subjects). In addition, he often derails talk page discussions with long, rambling barely-relevant edits that often include text copy-pasted from earlier posts on different topics.

These issues can be seen in his recent activity on Josephus on Jesus. In this edit (inadequately described as a “major cleanup”) Bruce inserts text based on fringey sources from 1892 and 1912 and another mainstream source from 2002. There’s been extensive discussion on the article talk page, which indicates that the 2002 source doesn’t say what Bruce claims; he seems to be basing his text on a blog post that builds an argument based on the 2002 source—as Bruce himself says, “What the blog next does is takes the pieces Mason presented and puts them together in a different way…” Since the blog is not a reliable source, putting this in the article is WP:OR#SYNTH, i.e. advancing an original argument through the use of published sources. This is a major issue with Bruce’s editing, but he usually claims that he’s simply explaining what’s in the source, rather than creating his own interpretation of the source.

I’ve had extensive experience with Bruce’s editing at Christ myth theory—years of experience, in fact, so I’m not sure how to boil it down into something concise. Perhaps it’s enough to say that Bruce has been the most active editor on this article in the last year ([7]) and is responsible for almost all of the text in the lead and the first few sections; in the discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory, many editors agreed that the article had significant problems with OR/SYNTH, and even Bruce himself seems to complain that the article is problematic. So perhaps he should take a break. (That noticeboard also illustrates how difficult it is to discuss issues with Bruce—he writes gigantic posts that rarely respond directly to anyone’s points.)

Also notice that attempting to improve these articles often inspires a revert, e.g. [8] [9] (this resulted in the article being protected for 3 days) and [10] [11] and [12] [13]. Bruce has also been removing posts from his user talk page ([14] [15] [16] [17]), which is obviously his right, but it doesn’t indicate a willingness to solve problems constructively. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The history of demanding self-published sources be recognized as acceptable is troubling, and the recent misrepresentation of sources at Josephus on Jesus is even more so. I might limit the scope of the ban to early Christianity, including issues related to the Historicity of Jesus, but I am not sure that Bruce has ever shown much interest in any other Christianity-related topics, so I have no real reservations about the ban as proposed. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Seems that covering alternative history is not enough but could this be seen as attempting to write alternative history as OR into existing articles? I think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that it looks like some WP:CANVASSing may have begun Special:Contributions/BruceGrubb since there are posts to talk pages of editors who are not currently mentioned in this thread. If this is in error than my apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is that under my comment. I have this page watch listed and it was the latest discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is under your comment because when I posted it there were no other posts after yours and, thus, this was the place to put it. I was simply trying to alert those that started this thread that something was up. I don't know where else it might have been placed and I was certainly not trying to make any comment about your post. If you want to outdent or indent it further please feel free to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to do that. Thanks for clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this fellow has caused havoc on Christ myth theory for the last couple years, resulting in more threads at WP:FTN than I wish to remember. He's a classic tendentious editor, and regrettably I think this is a clear case of keeping the tiger away from its prey. Moreschi (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This IMHO is the latest attempt by Akhilleus to WP:OWN the Christ myth theory article. As noted in Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory he has gone to noticeboards without notifying the talk page as to this going on.

He has verbally attacked myself and other editors in IMHO violation of AGF (see Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition for some of that--did Anthony really deserve that kind of response?)

He has ignored the comments of his fellow administrators User:SlimVirgin (Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_30) and User:Elen of the Roads ([Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory]) (who I have directly notified regarding this) as well at that of the community that IMHO clearly support my position that there is no real there there regarding this as a unified topic and numerous other behaviors to IMHO POV push that article it something not supported by the material.

For example, Akhilleus has even gone as far as to say and I quote "Schweitzer's comment in his autobiography is immaterial here" A quote that established just how Schweitzer classified John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, and Arthur Drews is immaterial?!? How does that work? Biblical scholar Marshall's two historical Jesus options (flesh and blood man or Gospels reasonably accurate) was similarity dismissed with something like 'Marshall doesn't give us enough options'.

@Amadscientist your alternative history comment makes no sense, unless you hold to the idea the Gospels are reasonably reliable as historical documents--something hotly debated (especially with regards to Mark and Luke).

@MarnetteD I would like to point out that User:SlimVirgin and User:Elen of the Roads are ADMINISTRATORS and this is the ADMINISTRATORS noticeboard. User:SlimVirgin felt the entire article was one big CFORK to begin with and User:Elen of the Roads stated "More significantly, since what is clear is that there isnt "a" christ myth theory, there are many of them, the article should focus on a run through the theories and their authors, not be containing sections such as that starting "There is no independent archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ."

Funny thing, I am the one who removed that "There is no independent archaeological evidence" stuff while the rest of you were perfectly happy to leave it in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I am seeing current examples of biased editing and some misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, at Chick tract (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Elizium23 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizium23 is challenging the following:

"A quick look at some of the creationist pamphlets and books shows just how misleading and dishonest their presentations are. Typical of the genre is the little pamphlet Big Daddy, published by creationist Jack Chick." (Prothero,, Donald R.; Carl Dennis Buell (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 334–335. ISBN 0231139624.)

""Nebraska man," as we outlined already, was the mistake of one scientist and was corrected within a year." (Prothero,, Donald R.; Carl Dennis Buell (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 334–335. ISBN 0231139624 pg 334)

As I explained in talk:Chick_tract#NPOV_does_NOT_apply_to_the_content_of_reliable_sources_but_how_they_are_worded_in_article_space NPOV applies to reliable sources which Columbia University Press clearly is. He provided NO reliable source to counter this but rather comes crying here that I am somehow violating NPOV. Now you have a prime example of the nonsense I have to deal with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I spent an hour today reading up on a source on Josephus on Jesus which BruceGrubb had twisted to support the almost exact opposite of what the author says. It was used out of context, and significant parts of the line of reasoning which it was supposed to support were not discussed at all; the source given by BruceGrubb for those parts is the "amateur research community". I don't think issues of WP:OR and WP:SYN get any clearer than that, and when I asked BruceGrubb on the talk page whether the source actually supported that critical piece of information (before looking it up myself), he did not answer that rather simple yes-or-no question but responded with what a collection of further unrelated citations which supported parts of his position and therefore to him apparently justify his synthesis. If this were a single incident I'd say a stern warning might be sufficient, but apparently it is not, and more thorough measures are required. Huon (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This has been going on too long - it's got way past warnings, talkings to, advisings, noticeboards, talkpages or discussions. Bruce has a (metaphorical) banana in each ear - anything you say sounds to him exactly like what he wants to do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice the way he says above that I support his position...classic example of this problem. I said he'd written a bunch of OR into the article, and suggested someone ask for a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, you are then denying that I stated on your own talk page "I believe you and I are in agreement that there is no one Christ myth theory thought I must ask if you share SlimVirgin's view that the entire article is one big CFORK." (sic)? Do you also disagree with the clarification above that clearly states that my position that "there is no real there there regarding this as a unified topic"? I have to ask who here really has "a (metaphorical) banana in each ear"?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the same person who is stated below to have considered the Oxford and Cambridge university presses unreliable because they are in a nominally Christian country? Bruce, I have to say that your obvious personal belief in the idea that Jesus/Christ was a myth has apparently so seriously warped your judgment that there seems to be increasing, perhaps unanimous, agreement regarding your conduct. Whether you personally would ever admit to that, of course, is another matter. However, please read WP:POV - there seems to be ever-increasing evidence that your biggest problem lies there. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I also made comments on the WP:NORN board, so I will just provide general points here. The problems I see, as outlined by Akhilleus are:

• Continued use of Self-published sources. This happens even after the user has been notified that a source is self-published. A recent example was the book by Richard Gibbs referred to in the links above. It is still there with a "self-published tag" on it.
• Continued use of WP:Original research items. The user even calls these the results obtained by "amateur research community" without naming the amateurs. There is a serious WP:OR issue here and it does not want to go away. It will be WP:OR for ever.
• Continued use of outdated and antique sources that have been long surpassed by modern scholarship. I once commented that a source he used was from 1910 and was over 100 years old. The retort was that no, it was republished in 1912 and was hence only 99 years old.
• Continued "knowing use" of statements that fail verification. At one point the user may admit that material is not in a source, then will add it again a few weeks later with the same source but with somewhat different language. As user Huon stated on talk today after directly checking Mason's book: "Bruce Grubb is twisting Mason's points beyond recognition".
• Continued use of WP:Walls of text as a method for changing the subject.

There is really little hope for remedy in this situation, and a topic ban is the best and perhaps the only way to stop the incredible waste of time that will otherwise ensue if this user realizes that "they can do all of this" and walk away scott-free. That can not happen. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't followed the subject area in question (thankfully), but I'm very familiar with Bruce's edits at WT:V and the related mediation pages, and I regard those edits as borderline disruptive, so the rationale expressed by those supporting the topic ban rings true to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support: An indefinite topic ban on all religion-related articles very broadly construed is LONG overdue, if not an outright community ban. This user constantly produces sources that clearly fail our policies, introduces OR and synth that abuse the sources, is a master of WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE, and sttempts to flummox anyone opposing him with long, rambling, barely coherent and off-topic filibustering. As someone else put it, a classic tendentious and disruptive editor that has wasted an enormous amount of time on the part of other editors. Fortunately, I have not had to deal with him myself, but have been lurking on the articles he mentioned and am surprised that it took so long for someone to start up a topic ban discussion. As I said, it's LONG overdue, and there is no hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively in the banned area. There are fundamental competence issues that cannot be overcome. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is an editor who tried to argue that Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press are unreliable sources because they are somehow linked to a Christian (British) state, and because the former publishes Bibles! [18]. Bruce has constantly and consistently misrepresented sources over a long period. At one point he claimed that a passing remark by the writer of an obscure article in a sociology journal was proof that Christ myth theory was a widely accepted view among sociologists. His posts are long walls of text comprising often almost unintelligable if interminable arguments. They function as battles of attrition against anyone who opposes him. I admit that I gave up the effort of expecting productive debate years ago. His agenda is clear: to make Christ myth theory seem more plausible and more widely accepted than, in fact, it is. He is an unrelenting POV warrior who believes that pious fraud is a legitimate means to convey WP:Truth. Paul B (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I won't tediously reiterate the reasons provided above, but I agree entirely. Eusebeus (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford and Cambridge issue was when I thought COI applied to sources as we as to editors. To clarify it wasn't just that Oxford and Cambridge published bibles but they had a special contract with the Crown (ie head of the Anglican church) to print the Authorized King James Version (the official bible of the Anglican church). As I said back then to expect any kind of verdict other then "Jesus existed as the Bible portrays him" from them was an on par with Brigham Young University Press saying anything but the Book of Mormon is historical accurate, Gregorian University Press saying anything but negative things about abortion, any German university from 1936 to 1945 doing anything but proving Jews were a parasitic/despicable/vile race, any 1950s US university saying anything but negative things on any subject views as communist, or a university that is getting huge grants from tobacco companies would say anything but that smoking is safe/good for you. This is known as "Confirmation bias" or "hypothesis locking" which Horace Mitchell Miner so brilliantly satirized in his famous 1955 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" article.

This is all ignoring the fact Oxford and Cambridge are in a country that until 1998 had a very broad Blasphemy law that would have made any meaningful review of the historical nature of Jesus next to impossible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is simply disingenuous. UK case law had long since established that denying the existence of God, or arguing against fundamental Christian tenets, did not qualify as blasphemy so long as it was done in a civil and respectful manner. This was true since at least the mid-20th century. Your point does not stack up. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was pretty much established in the mid 19th century when Charles Bradlaugh was acquitted of blasphemy for his numerous anti-Christian publications. Bruce's portrayal of Britain as some sort of Christian police-state with censorship comparable to Nazi Germany just indicates that he has a fundamentally distorted view of reality. Ps I wonder how the Grand Inquisition allowed these ones to be published by OUP [19] [20] Paul B (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And John William Gott (1921), Whitehouse v. Lemon (1977), and Michael Newman (1992) all show those blasphemy laws were still an effective tool at censoring ideas in a manner very similar to McCarthyism despite Bradlaugh's victory (which according to his wikipedia page was overturned by the Court of Appeal on a legal technicality)

In 1988 with regard to complaints regarding Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses by the Muslim community the House of Lords stated the laws only protect the Christian beliefs as held by the Church of England.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The idea that modern publications from the UK are not reliable sources because the UK law somehow prevents the discussion of the historical veracity of Christ is simply ludicrous. Bear in mind that On the Origin of Species was published in London in 1859, Thomas Henry Huxley had his famous debate with Soapy Sam Willberforece in 1860, and went on to publish Man's Place in Nature in 1863.

Indeed, as long ago as 1729 (R v Woolston) the Court "desired it might be taken notice of, that they laid their stress upon the word general, and did not intend to include disputes between learned men on particular controverted points." In 1841, the sixth report of the Commissioners on criminal law observed that "if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without the writer being guilty of blasphemy." Since that point, the prosecutable offense has been "blasphemous libel', as Article 214 of Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, Ninth Edition, 1950, makes clear. "It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language." The prosecutions Bruce refers to relate to satirising Christ as a circus clown (Gott 1921) (the prosecution in this case caused public outrage), contemplating having homosexual sex with Christ (Gay News 1977) and St Theresa of Avila having a passionate snog with Christ (Newman 1992 - note in this case that the filmmaker was never prosecuted, the film was banned under the Video Recordings Act 1984, and Newman was arrested (twice) for distributing the video, but was never prosecuted). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you are misrepesenting sources again: this time Wikipedia itself! Bradlaugh was acquitted of blashpemy absolutely. The conviction that was overturned was a separate matter. That was an obscenity trial, when he published a manual of sex advice as part of his promotion of family planning: nothing to do with blasphemy whatever. The rest of your post is typical of your method of creating distractions and irrelevancies. We are talking about being able to publish anti-Christian, atheistic etc literature. The fact that Islam was not protected by the law which covered scurrilous material insulting Christian belief has nothing to do with this. There was no censorship of ideas remotely comparable to McCarthyism. How do you think Bertrand Russell and numerous other atheists got their books published? The (very rare) cases you mention led to convictions because of the insulting and abusive language that was used. All of this is largely irrelevant to the question being debated here - your abuse of sources. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if anything is going to be achieved through a detailed discussion of the laws here, and most readers will probably not read through the details - I certainly will not. I am not sure if the rest of the debate will be affected by the specific legal issue here. The summary of this discussion is that Bruce still argues that Oxford University Press "was somehow controlled" not to publish on specific issues and is hence at times not suitable for use in Wikipedia. Can we just leave it at that? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You really don't understand what "confirmation bias" or "hypothesis locking" are do you? Its not a question of "somehow controlled" (unless you mean influence) as demonstrated by Minor's article (which given your comments you clearly either haven't read or didn't get the point of) but the mindset that is encouraged. The ability to be among the handful of printers allowed to print the official KJV for the Church of England in the UK caries with it a lot of prestige and money. To think that is not going to create some "confirmation bias" or "hypothesis locking" regarding the historical nature of Jesus is to ignore basic common sense. Even The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology (ISBN 978-0199245765) acknowledges that the resurrection cannot be verified by historical investigation while also admitting theologians say the resurrection happened 'in history'.

As I said: "There are fundamental competence issues that cannot be overcome." Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"This is all ignoring the fact Oxford and Cambridge are in a country that until 1998 had a very broad Blasphemy law that would have made any meaningful review of the historical nature of Jesus next to impossible." What kind of fantasy world are you living in? All the major Jesus myth books were published in the UK before 1998 without any censorship. For example, Allegro's The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross was published by Hodder & Stoughton. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin closure: The votes are now 10 to zero in favor of a topic ban. The reasons provided by the users who support a ban are generally uniform and consistent, and the comment by Dominus Vobisdu just above echoes the observation that Bruce's statements in this thread do not reflect an awareness of a need for change, rendering any type of warning ineffective. Ten-zero probably amounts to consensus on this, so closure would be appropriate so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose closure now, it's been less than day. and insert "not voting" blurb here. Suggest waiting at until, say Friday. Nobody Ent 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin intruder ;P) Oppose topic ban. Any kind of mentoring or re-focussing on the cards? Much less humiliating and quite possibly more constructive. My personal opinion is that while BG can come across as irritating, it's generally because he has something sensible to say and nobody's listening. I (think I) can see both sides of the problem here. Bruce has an excellent mind and (check his user page) background / qualifications. He's not an idiot. But ... BG, you can be a bit over-intense and over-verbose, even though you have good points, and people rebel against that. Hugz, anyways, and I hope that whatever happens is a sensible and constructive way forwards. Pesky (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Given the evidence and the well-reasoned rationales above, I'll be okay with closing this unless significant evidence to the contrary is given in the next day or so. I'm uncomfortable with a topic ban being enacted after such a short period in general, but the support is all well-reasoned rather than just pile-on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• People are bringing up diffs from 2008. If the problem complained of has been been ongoing for four years, the complainants should have the patience to allow a ban discussion to last more than a mere 22 hours and some minutes. Snap decisions on this noticeboard almost always turn out to be bad decisions, not least because third parties don't necessarily read these noticeboards every day of the week, or every hour of the day.

  Of course, that people are bringing up 4 year old diffs does raise the question of whether this is a current problem. However, the somewhat amazing claim, dated 2012-05-03 06:31, earlier in this very discussion, about OUP and CUP, does indicate that it is. On the other hand, the 2008 diffs don't actually read as people are here portraying them, which undermines the case for the ban somewhat in the eyes of this uninvolved observer. If you want to sway the opinions of third parties, rather than merely echo the opinions of an involved group who have already made up their minds long since (which is a waste of this noticeboard), you need to make a better case with diffs. Wading through four years of talkpage contributions takes time. (I speak from experience.) Most people that you are addressing this ban proposal to aren't going to do it on their own.

  And reading Talk:Chick tract#NPOV does NOT apply to the content of reliable sources but how they are worded in article space I see that there's blame to be shared around a bit, if that's any guide to the sorts of talk page discussions you are claiming to have had. It is rather silly, people, to say that "I never claimed that talk pages are subject to NPOV" only four edits below saying "Headings should be neutral". At best, that's logic chopping. If you're going to upbraid BruceGibb for a bad talk page discussion style, I suggest not setting up such silly arguments amongst yourselves in the first place. Splinter in your brother's eye, and all that.

  Uncle G (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Huh? What's self-contradictory about saying "talk headings should be neutral" and "talk page discussions are not subject to NPOV"? Both statements are quite correct. Yes, talk headings should be neutral, but the reason for that is not the NPOV policy; it's something else. Perfectly logically consistent position to take. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  This is a content dispute and the remedy is not logically related to the objection.  I am familiar with BGs edits at WT:V.  BG has repeatedly given IMO well-founded evidence at WT:V of Wikilawyering WP:OR arguments against his position.  I see repeated references to WP:OR above, in fact, it is the first "problem" raised in this thread.  I think this entire exercise is better explained by issues that don't belong at ANI.  Personally, I would read more of BG's posts if they were more concise.  It would also help if the beginning and end of quotes were clearly marked.  I've also seen the problem of a long post changing the topic of a thread.  BG is an internalized editor, but has a broad knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually no one is trying to stop him from typing on WP:V. The issue is that the continued "knowing use" of improper sources on other pages, and arguments that are clearly, clearly far less than logical. And I did say "knowing use" of improper sources. What is the use of a user having a "broad knowledge" of policy as you state, if he is determined not to follow policy, but violate it again and again by inventing sources, removing tags at will, misrepresenting references, using self-publishers in one breath, then challenging Oxford University Press in the next breath. There are diffs and statements by a number of people that affirm this pattern of conduct. Let us reproduce more diffs below. This is a straightforward task. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"I think this entire exercise is better explained by issues that don't belong at ANI." I'm not sure I follow this sentence, but this is not ANI. It's AN. It's the appropriate board to request a topic ban. "This is a content dispute and the remedy is not logically related to the objection." No, it is not a content dispute, It is about the abuse of sources and other behaviour issues. "BG has repeatedly given IMO well-founded evidence at WT:V of Wikilawyering WP:OR arguments against his position." I've no idea what this means. Arguments about policy are not subject to WP:OR. Policy is decided by the community, so you can't criticise someone for "OR" arguments in favour of specific wording. However, this is beside the point. This is about a topic ban, not blocking all editorial activity. The topic is early Christianity, and more specifically Christ myth theory. This will not affect Bruce's ability to contribute to discussions about WP:V, though I should note that Bruce's arguments there are tangentally related since he is, in effect, attempting to weaken the rules against OR in articles. Still, he has every right to argue for that view. Paul B (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested Diffs: Uncle G asked for diffs, let us add some here:

• User claims that the London Times is a right wing publication The user labels the London Times a "right wing publication" owned by Murdoch, thus trying to reduce the effect of what it says. Does that reflect a broad knowledge of Wikipedia policy?

• User claims that Oxford University Press is somehow under some form of control just above in this thread here, again trying to deny what it publishes. The same claim for Cambridge University Press. Should these publishers get a topic ban?

• User claims that Van Voorst (a professor) is WP:RS reliable, but not when his book is published by Eerdsman The same user who uses self-published books and "amateur research" claims that 100 year old publisher Eerdmans has a "horrid QA department" and hence what Van Voorst publishes through them in 2001 or so is unreliable. As I pointed out in this edit on page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on Van Voorst' book, and calls it the "best recent discussion on the topic". And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst". One of the best books on the topic is labelled as unreliable by a user who uses self-published items. Eerdmans publishes many highly respected professors in fact, as I pointed out here.

• User continues to rely on totally outdated sources (often about 100 years old) In the edit posted here the user reprimanded me for "having failed to do my research" because the book he used was published in 1912, not 1910, as I had assumed. In this edit I apologized and said that he was right and the book is "only 99 years old". I did, however remind him to avoid outdated Model-T era sources. However, he used even sources that predate the model-T just this week, using a book from 1893. The use of seriously outdated references is pervasive. Here the user added a 1877 reference. If these are still supported by modern scholars, then why not use "modern scholarship" instead of 100 year old sources? Wikipedia can not operate on "antique and outdated" sources.

• User continues to remove "citation needed" and "failed verification" tags without providing sources In the edit presented here, the user removed a citation needed tag from the self-published book by Richard Gibbs, and a failed verification tag from the claim which the user has never substantiated except through the unnamed "amateur community". The user had been notified that Gibbs is self-published and that he is no scholar.

• User has a history of tag removal "at will". The tag removal mentioned above is but an instance of others. The user removes tags with no explanation, gets reverted and continues unscathed. Here is another case and the unopposed restoration of it to the top level section. How long can this go on?

• The user continues to use "invented sources" Wikipedia has to be an encyclopedia based on on solid sources. As another user stated in this edit: "I have now read Mason, and while I thought History2007's scorn undue before, I now understand his reasoning. BruceGrubb ist twisting Mason's points beyond recognition". And that is a correct statement. Bruce Grubb is using a source that talks about Book 18 of the Antiquities by Josephus to hint at an argument about a passage in Book 20. The source is thus "invented", and does not correspond to what appears on page 228 of Mason's book, as he has been told many, many times on the talk page.

• User continues to be accused of "persistent POV pushing" and "misrepresentation" by a number of people The user continues to be accused of misrepresenting sources on the topic under discussion. A glance at the comments in this thread should already make it clear that: "One does not make that many people angry by following policy".

• [21] and [22]: combative and un-WP:CIVIL edit summaries. Elizium23 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Biased section heading on a talk page, disregarding WP:TALKNEW guideline and possible misunderstanding of WP:NPOV Elizium23 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizium23, again provides a typical example of the nonsense I have to deal with

1) The London Times is NOT the same thing as Times Literary Supplement--they are two different divisions under the same publishing arm. Never mind that as mentioned in the Washington Post "Rupert Murdoch’s expanding scandal follows classic media baron script" the fall out of that mess "has seen his clout wither amid the scandal over illegal eavesdropping at his News of the World tabloid."

2) Ironically The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics talks about avoiding even the appearance of "confirmation bias" and "hypothesis locking".

3) I explained Eerdmans problems in detail in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_18#What_does_Wells_really_say_in_Jesus_Myth.3F. As I said back then why would a "reputable academic publisher" allow picture of a bichrome Canaanite decanter be used in Klassen’s article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass? Last I checked reputable academic publishers didn't allow that type of insanity (in their academic books). That is akin to using an Olmec artifact when talking about the Aztecs--sloppy doesn't even begin to cover it. In an earlier work (Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge, Graham Gould) Eerdmans allows their authors to stated "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus."--problem is in reality neither Pliny or Suetonus use the name "Jesus" at all! In fact, Suetonus is hotly debated regarding if his Chrestos has anything to do with Christ. As was pointed out by another editor some four years ago "When claims are this poorly checked it brings into question the quality of all the publishing house's works."

4) The claim of biased subject headings in the talk page is boarderline insane. It was in regards to the restoration of material that was referenced to a Columbia University Press book. WP:V clearly states "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source The material Ckruschke removed was NOT "lacking an inline citation to a reliable source" which was the original "NPOV does NOT cover quotes from reliable sources!" title was about. WP:NPOV clearly states "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." To date no reliable source challenging the Columbia University Press book has been presented. In short NEITHER WP:NPOV or WP:V applied.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please add other diffs to this list above. There are just so many that are just too laughable. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the comment below by Huon is addressed to Uncle G. History2007 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 2008 diffs you mean; the oldest diff provided by Akhilleus was from about three weeks ago. The only one linking to talk page archives from 2009 and 2010 is BruceGrubb himself. If you want some diffs of a recent problem, I can provide them: In this edit, already linked by Akhilleus above, BruceGrubb introduces original synthesis by citing Mason to support statements almost the opposite of what Mason actually says. He follows up by directly citing the amateur research community. (The source provided is Gibbs, p. 143 (actually p. 144), but firstly, that's self-published and not a reliable source, and secondly, Gibbs also doesn't make the connection BruceGrubb wants him to support.) I ask him about his sources on the talk page (before checking Mason myself); his reply completely misses the point and provides further original synthesis. As I said above, If Bruce Grubb were a new editor, this might be resolved by giving him a stern warning and pointing him to WP:RS and WP:NOR. But apparently this behaviour has been going on for years. Huon (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the editor in question has been doing that for years and stepped on many other people's toes in the process, this definitely requires a topic banhammer. Using self-published sources that may or may not be of value to the article. I'v said it before in the cases of other errant [term censored due to NPA] editors, but if he can't follow the rules, better get out of the project. I presume they have been notified of this discussion? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the user was notified about this. History2007 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that not only has Bruce been notified, he has already, as of this writing, made four comments in this thread. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And in those four comments he did not challenge his own use of:

• Outdated sources - often about a hundred years old
• Self-published sources and "amateur research" - even after notification
• Invented references that fail verification - and removal of tags from them

He reiterated his position that Oxford University Press is questionable, but for someone who usually "types a lot" he remained silent on the issue of improper sources, not challenging the validity of the root causes of this request for a topic ban. History2007 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Cat Daddy Locked?

There is some sort of lock on the Cat Daddy page making it impossible for me to recreate. Can this be undone? (It is possible that my IP is blocked because at this moment I am at the Chicago Public Library).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is salted.[23] 64.160.39.217 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• It was salted because it was repeatedly recreated and then immediately deleted as a CSD:A9 (as the article was about a single by a band called Rej3ctz who as you can see don't have an article). I've unlocked it so you should be able to create it now. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I am going to make something encyclopedic of this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Someone {{db-song}}ed this again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Now the page history is messed up making it look like I created it with the DB tag (which has since been removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I thought you were going to make something encyclopedic of this topic. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree with Drmies. Tony, I think you might want WikiNews. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to improve this article, but some topics are just not notable enough to exist on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain why this song is notable (supported with some reliable sources) and why it should have an article on Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Two words: Cat Daddy on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I know that the Internet has had an effect on the English language. But is that really only two words these days? Is the word boundary between "Daddy" and "on"? Or between "on" and "Twitter"? Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm more worried about the state of Wikipedia than that of the English language. The claim to fame for this song is that it became "topical" when an almost-nobody danced to it in some office and it was posted by another barely somebody. "Topical" my ass--but TT has made a career out of posting encyclopedic articles about vloggers and bloggers and cloggers. At what point do WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM come in? This is WP:FART material but hey! it's got sources. Tony, try to get a screenshot of the woman's breasticles in there. They were on YouTube, so they must be notable. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The irony is that the song itself isn't even topical. The song is completely incidental. The 'topical' story is Kate Upton vs. YouTube. But I've been involved in more than enough AfDs on 'topical' articles to know that WP:NOTNEWS gets swept under the carpet in cases like this. Resolute 21:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        • My favourite part of this news article (tsk) is the "Legacy" heading. Hilarious, but unfortunately April fools was some time ago. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:TaeTiSeo

Does this user's username violate username policy. Because it's a name of a sub-group of Girls' Generation, TaeTiSeo. Please tell me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Although WP:UAA is thataway, I have softblocked and deleted their userpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad Block per WP:ORGNAME:

Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

They don't appear to be advertising or not editing an article of the same name, they should be encouraged to change their name, per the policy. I doubt just blocking them outright was a great idea. There also appears to be a language issue as they have written in Korean. ‑KoshVorlon| Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 19:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RPP backlog

There is a a list of six pages now at WP:RPP, can a admin swing by please. Mtking ^(edits) 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooooohhh... 6 whole pages!?!?!?!? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not any more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there admins for the backlogs?

Currently, WP:RPP and WP:AIV are is heavily backlogged. Admins are needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a general shortage of admins to respond to 3RR? History2007 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate use of protection?

Resolved

 – page semi-d Nobody Ent 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it now a policy to full protect user talk pages just because an editor doesn't want to get messages while on wikibreak? [24] Will this courtesy be extended to editors who can't protect them own pages? Nobody Ent 01:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When that protection is to stop further harassment, then it seems perfectly fine. See the section i'm making below now. Silverseren^C 02:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sock using an ip account to edit

For those of you with Admin tools who are familiar with the sock puppeteer User:Jonathan Yip and his many socks, this ip account is making the very same type of edits. --JOJ ^Hutton 02:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked. AGK [•] 15:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Separating redirects

I was about to snip the redirect between Chitauri and Reptilians (no cited connection between the two terms), and I realized that I have no idea how to do so, and I'd hate to mess some stuff up. Can someone explain how it's done/git 'er' done/ask the Great Pumpkin for guidance? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFD Nobody Ent 16:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't; per the relevant AFD, chitauri are a topic proposed by David Icke, who gets an entire section in Reptilians. We simply need to find a citation for this; I'd guess that it's present in citation #8 at the moment, which for some reason keeps giving me an HTTP 403 error that's meant for bots and people with browsers substantially older than mine. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This link? Ctrl-F for 'chitaur' doesn't give me anything. ~Crazytales (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong and COI

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: this thread was split from a different thread (#More threats on Wikipediocracy). Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes - the real issue here is an admin User:Scottywong - that has opposed paid editing and yet allegedly has some profile offering to create articles for money and he has today used his tools to delete his own conflict of interest article diff and then fully protected his user and talk page and put a wiki break notice - ya couldn't make it up - It seems pretty obvious that those are not things he was given his tools for and that it seems he should have those tools removed and I for one support his recall.Youreallycan 14:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Haste makes waste. I'd suggest we table this discussion until Scotty comes back; hopefully, this will also allow everyone to calm down a bit... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

... which is the classic response to any administrator's misdeeds Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This just prolongs SW's public exposure. He should have been desysopped already, by his voluntary request, I'd like to think.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted page's history, but as long as it really did qualify for G7 deletion, I don't see any abuse of tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin userfy it somewhere, Biamp_System - with the edit history so we can investigate it please - Youreallycan 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. It's now here. FWIW, In my opinion, Scotty's speedy deletion of the article under G7 was perfectly correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems technically correct under G7, but whether it was really appropriate is another question. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio - Yes , as per Rd232. - It wasn't supported by any independent reliable citations and as it stood it was a bit of primary promotion. - Youreallycan 18:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble caring about the article to be honest. It's a two line stub, not particularly promotional and not worth keeping on the encyclopedia. I think the bigger problem is that Scotty has done such a job of trying to censor this discussion in an inappropriate manner, manually archiving a thread at ANI, deleting the article in question, protecting his own talk page... I don't know, he seems to have made this molehill into quite the mountain. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder, if you have a specific policy concern that requires adminstraive-level intervention please take that to AN/I. If you are simply here to cast aspersions and attack the credibility of people without pointing to specific policy, then please take your gripes elsewhere. If you are interested in general policy discussions about how to improve Conflict of Interest policy as it relates specifically to admins, this forum may work, but I am almost 100% certain there are specific forums for that, namely the WP:NPOV Talk Page, or the WP:COI Talk Page. WP:CIVILITY is a pillar policy on Wikipedia and it should go without saying that we don't make accusations without a clear foundation for them. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, it is highly frowned upon when peasants such as you and I try and shut down such a heated thread as this one. Though WP:NAC technically only deals with deletion discussions specifically, it's not an unreasonable stretch to extend it to discussions at other venues. The advice against NACing controversial discussions thus can carry over here. As such, your closure—while it may have been well-intentioned and whatnot—was probably not appropriate to begin with, and your snarky wording made it even more problematic. P.S.: "Snotty" has been going by "Scotty" for a decent while now ;) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

COI edits

Scottywong has not just advertised his services off-wiki, but has also made edits with an undisclosed COI here. He has been the main author of CobraNet, a GA-class article which prominently mentions Biamp and cites pages on their website as sources. He's also been in most every other article that mentions Biamp, either adding references to Biamp or just wikilinking it: Silicon Forest, Automixer (note IP edits [25]), Steve Sundholm, [26], etc. He has also complained that the article on Dante (networking), a CobraNet rival that Biamp do not support, reads like an advertisement, and is the article's main author.

Wikipedia cannot regulate COI while allowing editors to remain anonymous. And it is absurd to come crashing down on people who openly declare their COI in their user name, hard-blocking them on sight, while we have anonymous administrators who happily make edits with an undisclosed COI.

We should make it a rule that any editing related to your employment must be accompanied by a user page disclosure. If admins and other editors are unwilling to say who they are here, then they should register an alternative account for COI edits, say who they are on the user page of that alternative account, and let arbcom know about the sock. If they are not prepared to do that, they should simply stay away from topics involving their employer. The whole COI thing is a mockery otherwise. It rewards those who sneak and punishes the honest. JN466 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

'tis true. Regulating COI is fundamentally at odds with anonymity. Either we give up anonymity (at least in a limited way, where COI is involved), or we give up on regulating COI. Since giving up anomyity generally is neither desirable nor enforceable, and doing so in a limited way even less enforceable, we end up with the current dog's breakfast of hoping that COI doesn't really matter that much in principle (which is possibly true if the proportion of COI editing is low enough) but getting upset about it when we come across it in practice. Rd232 ^talk 17:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that I support COI editing, but it might be worth noting that a number of those difs are from a couple years ago. Is there any evidence of recent problematic editing in this area? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit is from less than a month ago. Going by Jimbo's much publicised bright line rule, Scotty should at most have suggested the edit on the talk page, and in addition should have disclosed that the edit involved his employer. (Note also that someone just dropped me this and that on my talk page.) JN466 23:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 1. Never make a rule that cannot be enforced. You just end up looking silly.  Tigerboy1966  18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have challenged the GA status of Cobranet on its talk p. In my view, it would never have been given such status without the reputation of the editor, and indicates a problem with paid editing: using not only our skills, but the reputations volunteer WPedians have given us for commercial purposes.

The truly primary problem with paid editing is that the results are almost always at least promotional and can be distinguished as such no matter how well done. I intend to check as many such identified articles as I can if they are called to my attention. (I am aware from reviewing articles from AfC that other editors have reviewed. that I may have high standards than many others in this regard, but I think they represent the NPOV goal we are striving for. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, DGG, I haven't disagreed with you more in 6 years than I do here. This highlights the problem of NOT having an adequate policy relegated to Paid Editing and COI. (I haven't confirmed the COI/Paid Editing piece myself, but I'm trusting that others who have chimed in have.) But if true, SW took a highroad, nigh snobberish stance against paid editing---this gave the appearance that he was against paid editing while actively being engaged in such actions---and epitomizes why we should have a policy that they should be declared. If he had been declared, then "his reputation" would have been viewed differently. Failure to declare would thus become a foundation for blocking/banning. The only way a person could edit and get paid would be if they declare it, in which case we know to view them differently.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that people are upset, but I'm looking for the actual infraction here. He didn't disclose a COI—but we don't require him to do that. He said he was willing to engage in paid editing—but we don't prohibit paid editing for anyone. (Paid admin actions aren't the same as paid editing.) He speedy-deleted a speedy-deletable substub—but we've always told admins they could do this. So what's the problem? He's doing things that we permit, but we want to hang him anyway? If we don't want to permit these things, then we nned to change the rules, not make up ex post facto rules to punish someone for doing what we've long said was permissible behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, one thing is clear from the discussion... if true... then he's a hypocrit.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think SW did anything particularly wrong, besides acting inappropriately to try and clear up the mess. The article had stood for 2 years, so even though he was the sole author - I'd say the G7 is dubious, especially given the circumstances that he'd been accused of COI and paid editing. I see this sort of behaviour regularly with my adoption program, where inexperienced editors panics when they think they might have done something wrong and does everything they can to excuse it/fix it. Sometimes it's best to just take a step back and let others fix the mess, answering questions honestly. Let's keep some perspective, Scotty wrote this article 2 years ago, he was a very different editor back then and has matured to the point of passing an RfA a few months ago. I'd like to see him talk openly and frankly about what happened, everyone makes mistakes. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the solution should be yet, but I am very disturbed at what is at the minimum, hypocracy and a breach of trust. In particular, we would expect our admins to disclose this type of COI, and fix it before their RfA. If it requires being outed, then they need to choose anonymity or paid editing with a declared COI, not both. And while I can overlook previous disclosed payments for edits, I am very uncomfortable with active admins accepting payment for new edits, disclosed or not. He made his own situation worse by not being up front about it. It isn't about infractions as much as judgement and trust. I'm trying to be open minded until I hear from him, but it does require a little effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO, I have no problem with an admin being paid, so long as they understand that they shouldn't act in areas where they have a paid investment.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is no real policy or even clarity on the issue, so I would discourage any admin from doing it or at the very least, I would expect crystal clear disclosure about what areas are paid and what aren't. Like a public list on your user page of what you are working on for pay. admin or not. I'm new to the mop but not to Wikipedia, so my memory of how admins are sometimes viewed by editors is quite fresh. There should be lots of air between what they do as an editor and what they do as an admin, and money only makes the need greater. Anything that reduces the trust between admins and non-admins should be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is no particular harm in an admin being a declared paid editor, for they're already prohibited from taking admin action about articles they're involved in. An undeclared paid admin is a hazard to the community in the same way as an admin who socks in order to use admin action when he's involved, or who is determined to enforce his private POV on a topic. I have always found it utterly amazing that we permit admins to be totally anonymous, rather than identifying themselves privately as arbs do. We're asking for problems, and over the years we have had them. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Dennis: Like the idea of editors having a list on their own page of articles for which they have been / are being paid. That's a very sensible one. Pesky (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

More threats on Wikipediocracy

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.

---

Now we have more threats of contacting a Wikipedian's employer (obviously to get them in trouble and/or fired).

We need to completely ban this site now and cut all ties with it. Silverseren^C 02:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Link removed. Please do not readd. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's seriously unacceptable. Do we have any links with this forum though? Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a number of editors, and especially admins, that are members of the forum and that use it to verbally attack on-wiki editors and also take part in discussions that involve what I linked above. Silverseren^C 02:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose we stop people from posting on that site? --Jayron32 02:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed before that comments made by people there that are known to be editors here should be considered on-wiki. It won't stop people posting, which isn't our business, but it will stop the attacks, the outing, and these threats. Sure, the people over there who are already permanently banned users won't stop, but there's not much we can really do about them until they do something against an editor that can get them legally in trouble for harassment. But what we need to deal with and can deal with to some extent is the chilling effects that are used over there to influence editors and discussions on-wiki. Silverseren^C 02:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a slippery slope problem. No, I don't want people acting badly and threatening people IRL on Wikipediocracy, but I don't want them to do that anywhere, and really, it is just one website. We can't police the entire internet looking for people outing Wikipedians, and ultimately this leads to a Streisand effect type problem: All we do is bring greater exposure to that site, which sounds like a bad idea. In the end, I don't see the wisdom in creating general sanctions for behavior at external websites, though in specific cases I would not object to off-wiki evidence being used to build a harassment case. That's the sort of thing, however, that I would be more comfortable with Arbcom handling, given the sensitive nature to some of this. I don't see a workable community-based, wide-reaching policy which applies to any specific external website (or indeed against off-wiki posting in general). --Jayron32 02:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said at commons:Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions#Treat_comments_made_offwiki_as_if_they_were_made_onwiki, "Whilst superficially attractive, this would just make users of those sites dissociate themselves from their Commons/Wikimedia accounts. This dissociation would make things worse - there would no longer be any accountability for offsite comments at all, since we wouldn't even know who said what. In addition, such a policy/practice would make Commons users vulnerable to sanction for acts committed by offsite impersonators." Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Where was the threat? Just seemed to be a prediction based on Scottywong's alleged hypocrisy in his on-Wikipedia attitude to paid editing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"I'm sure some enterprising person will send a quick note to the people who own the machine that you're editing from. Just out of curiosity, does your employer know that you spend that much time editing wikipedia during work hours? Do you think they will be ambivalent to the hours they've been paying you being used for this purpose? Do they know you're moonlighting on eLance? Inquiring minds and all that..."

All of this is a threat to do what the first sentence says. Silverseren^C 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Still can't see any threat. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't be daft. You know exactly what he's getting at. If a shady looking guy with a noticeable bulge in his coat pocket comes up to you in a dark alley and says "That's a nice watch you're wearing," it's not hard to figure out his intent. (Hint: He's not complementing you on your choice of attire) This is an equally obvious case. Raul654 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not comparable. Contacting the employer would surely be harassment, and a subpoena for the poster's IP with a view to legal action would certainly be a possibility; so posting this when intending to do it (or even seriously expecting the post to encourage others to do it) would be pretty stupid. I can't think of an equivalent stupidity for your dark alley analogy. Rd232 ^talk 12:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your logic that the threat shouldn't be taken seriously only holds if the threat of litigation is real (which it probably is not) and if nobody ever did anything stupid on the internet (which is patently not true). Raul654 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the nature of this thread, it seems sensible to ask for frequent contributors to Wikipediocracy to declare that along with their opinion here. This might help allay possible fears of canvassing or tag teaming. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about we just ignore them? That might be worth a shot, it would save us some time too. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ignoring them doesn't work when they are taking actions against Wikipedians, outing them and otherwise trying to affect both their online presence and their real lives. Silverseren^C 03:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• It would be helpful in the future if the response to posts like that would be to report the post to the moderators, rather than starting another round of drama on the wiki. Unless of course the drama is considered to be somehow helpful in its own right, in which case keep doing it this way.

  (As a courtesy to Fae, I can disclose that I would be one of the people getting the ping from the report button.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  And I can report that I wouldn't be, and that I was recently threatened more directly with outing on Wikipediocracy than Scottywong was. But I didn't make a fuss, either here or there, and as I'm not an administrator nobody cares whether I'm outed or not. Interesting. In fact I've even been threatened with outing by an administrator on this site, who went to the trouble to trace my address. Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• And you reported it and nothing happened? Where's the discussion for that? Silverseren^C 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't report what? The threatened outing here or on Wikipediocracy? The threat here was made by email; my response to the threat on Wikipediocracy is there for anyone to see. Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• The email one. Silverseren^C 04:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  No. To be fair though I think the admin might already have been desysoped by then, for other abuses such as describing me as "some form of insect, possibly a cockroach ... or perhaps a juvenile amoeba". Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What about frequent contributors to IRC? Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite. At least with Wikipediocracy all the discussions are public. And to state the obvious about asking contributors to identify themselves: there are many more people who read the site than contribute. All that approach will encourage is, again (as I noted above in relation to making offsite comments = onsite), dissociation between Wikimedia and Wikipediocracy accounts, removing all trace of accountability. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well people could just OUT the alternate Wikipediocracy accounts. That would work. John lilburne (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That would "work" brilliantly. I can just see the joe jobs now. The trouble with net censorship (and that's basically what's being asked for here, to shut down offsite discussion and vilify anyone who can be identified as having been involved in any capacity) is that it's actually quite hard to do effectively. Rd232 ^talk 11:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• How about we have a discussion about the endless scurrying to AN and ANI by Seren, Fae, etc... everytime someone on the proverbial WP:BADSITE says something they'd rather not hear? At this point, how is this not considered disruptive behavior? Tarc (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• ^ See Tarc, proverbial example of a Wikipediocracy member. As an actual reply though, I know you don't think outing or threats are important, but i'm afraid the rest of the community disagrees with you. Silverseren^C 09:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seren, stop distorting, you know full well that I am a "member" of the Kohsocracy in the technical sense only. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: in response to an RFC on Commons (here) there is now an email address to contact Wikipediocracy moderators (previously, you needed to get an account to contact them). So it's now much more feasible to ask that problematic posts are removed. This new site is attempting to distance itself from some of the excesses of the Wikipedia Review past, and qua site, it would make sense to try and give that a chance. Of course this doesn't mean that individual acts by editors offsite can't be considered as part of an Arbcom case, say, in relation to showing harassment. Nor does it mean (since harassment is a criminal act, and the term should not be thrown around lightly) that offsite comments can't be provided to the relevant authorities when necessary. What it does mean is that when a discussion is highlighted offsite, the canvassing/advertising effect may be noted so that people are aware, and everyone reminded of WP:NOTAVOTE. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd232, in consideration that this thread is being canvassed on Wikipediocracy with the thread Yellow stars for everyone (how clever to turn the holocaust into a joke again to inflame the debate), how would you suggest that the canvassing/advertising effect should be highlighted? Perhaps something similar to {{spa}} after each comment from anyone widely know to be as heavily involved in Wikipediocracy as yourself would work here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm disappointed, so its not like a gold star that teachers used to stick on a wall chart when you'd been good at school. John lilburne (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think this thread is being made fun of (as opposed to canvassed) in that thread, Fae. I'm not fond of the "Yellow Stars" analogy either, but then again I'm also not comfortable with the wiki-analogical use of "outing" either (not to mention the rather trivialized interpretations of "stalking" and "harassment" that have become common parlance during these mudslinging exercises). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fae, my suggestion was at commons:Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions#Offsite_discussion_link_template. It's not like offsite canvassing/advertising effects are unknown; there are AFD templates for it for example. The only really practical responses are (i) highlight the offsite discussion, so people (especially any discussion closers) are aware and (ii) where people are entering a discussion with very little contribution history (or reasonably recent contribution history), their comments can be annotated with those facts. Both of those are already done, there is nothing special about Wikipediocracy in that regard. Rd232 ^talk 11:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions on off Wiki behavior would essentially require Wikipedia editors to out themselves and be subject to gaming: Wikipedians could be impersonated offsite to get them sanctioned onsite. Nobody Ent 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with NobodyEnt, the side effects are so dramatic that I compare it to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly in a crowded subway car. Maybe you'll get the fly (but likely not) but there sure will be some collateral damage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rd232, for pointing out that Wikipediocracy has a process for handling sincere concerns about our site: email us at support@wikipediocracy.com. I just checked the inbox folder: "THIS FOLDER IS EMPTY" - so I guess that posting it in a few more places is advised. *scratches head* Unless that's spamming or something. I don't mean to violate any of Wikipedia's processes. Oh, yes. As per WP:FAE I hereby disclose that I am an admin on Wikipediocracy.com. →StaniStani  11:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So why haven't you guys done anything against the Wikipediocracy post mentioned in this thread? It's very obvious that people are complaining about it, and you are obviously aware of it (despite no email being sent). Does that mean that kind of behaviour is okay at Wikipediocracy? --Conti|✉ 11:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that once something is brought up on a noticeboard (etc.), we tend to be accused of "hiding the evidence" if we remove something after the fact. Since Silver Seren has already copied the text to this thread, removing it from WCY would be pointless now anyway. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So if you remove it without making a copy it's "hiding the evidence", if there is a copy there's no point in removing it in the first place. Soo.. logically, there's no good reason to ever remove anything? If that's the case, why allow people to complain in the first place? :) --Conti|✉ 11:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, see my post above that begins with "It would be helpful in the future..." ;-). And yes, it's a ridiculous situation, but not one of my making (or of the WCY folks in general). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So what about a friendly, official statement that such indirect threats are not welcome on the forum? You're right, what's done is done, but you can at least disapprove of such actions (assuming that you do, that is). --Conti|✉ 12:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Statements of disapproval have been offered on the thread in question (where such statements rightly belong, IMO). Words are often more effective than delete buttons, in my experience :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is supposed to be hidden? The veiled threat (if such it was) isn't going to be magically disarmed by deleting the post. Nor is there any actual information in the post, just unsourced claims. Demanding they be deleted just gives them credibility. Really, in view of the Streisand effect, we should just ignore these things as far as possible - unless there's some real on or offwiki action which can and should be taken. Rd232 ^talk 12:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you know how the 'cracy user base compares with the 3455 AN watchers who have (allegedly) now been encouraged to contact a Wikipedian's employer. Nobody Ent 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The forum gives the view count for each thread; that thread currently has 656 views. (Though the post in question was recent, so we don't know how many of those views predate the post.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that 656 would include Wikipedians who followed the link at the top of this thread? Nobody Ent 12:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As a more practical suggestion, as in any thread that appears to be against a regular contributor of Wikipediocracy, or any thread that is being actively canvassed on Wikipediocracy (such as this one), we routinely see Wikipediocrats outnumbering and overwhelming the opinions of anyone else on AN or ANI in an effective travelling circus, perhaps it would be practical and expedient to mark those people with opinions who are not Wikipediocrats. Perhaps they can have nice gold stars, or pink triangles perhaps? I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that makes sense. Mere posting offsite invalidates any opinion. I guess we're going to need a whole rainbow of triangles to cover IRC, facebook, twitter, bla. The real problem becomes: how do we identify people who read those offsite discussions without participating? (I know you do, Fae.) Oh, this censorship thing is hard. I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy, but I have posted there. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind being marked. Can't put a link to the site in my sig, or an image, but perhaps this will do for the moment. I'll have to mention this thread to my buddies the next time I march in a pride parade. →StaniStani^WPO  12:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to edit Wikipedia, editors could be required to install software which monitors all incoming and outgoing IP packets which could then be analyzed by a AI engine; all discussions referenced in email, IRC, web browsing etc could be automatically tagged by a bot with applicable URLs. Additionally, if the device used has a microphone, that could be monitored to for any verbal discussions of Wikipedia; the bot could upload little sound clips. That way a closing admin would have access to the full story instead of having to rely on human judgement. What I do off of Wikipedia is none of your business. Nobody Ent 12:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Conti way up there, I asked Vigilant to clarify his remarks and he did, showing that there was indeed no threat, but just a snarky remark. He resented it a bit, but hey, new regime, new ways. →StaniStani^WPO  12:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to it? All I see is this, where he very clearly stands behind his words ("No. ScottyWong is a bully. Look at his statement at Delicious Carbuncle's page during the latest block drama. He says to a blocked editor, who is not all that popular, "Suck it, nerd." He plays to the crowd. He's a bully. Fuck him."). Maybe I just missed it.. --Conti|✉ 15:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see any relevant clarification either, just defiance. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So Fae... how exactly is a per-editor disclosure of involvement or non-involvement with Wikipediocracy (be it in signatures, like Stanistani has now done, on userpages, or in every discussion somebody thinks it relevant) not going to end up promoting the site? Yes, it's that Streisand effect again... Rd232 ^talk 12:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you are an active supporter the website by regularly posting there and thereby encouraging the use of the website by other Wikimedians with a trusted status is a far greater issue. Discussing the threat to Wikipedia that an attack forum owned by Gregory Kohs represents should be done in the open, not sneakily on IRC or by email, don't you think? That I am accused of disruption by even mentioning these problems on this noticeboard seems rather bizarre when your friends on Wikipediocracy are free to make false allegations month after month after month about my sex life and my integrity as a charity trustee, along with calling me blatantly homophobic names and disturbingly associating me with open police investigations into the deaths of gay people. As said before, free speech is not the same thing as allowing hate speech, defamation or harassment. I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you still try to carry out a failed, BADSITES-esque agenda against websites where people feel you are a net negative to this project isn't lost on anyone, Fae. You just pick up random threads over there and try to stitch them into a grand conspiracy against you. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions making direct allegations about me using my full legal name can hardly be called "random". I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

STOP constantly accusing me of supporting Wikipediocracy merely by posting there (usually in response to others), and of being "friends" with people who are attacking you (and presumably with the people who attacked me offsite too). Do it again, I'll open an RfAr for harassment, because I've fucking well had enough of it. Want to make such claims offwiki, by email, IRC, who the fuck cares? Be my guest. Onwiki, shut the fuck up. Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for assuming that your fellow members of the Wikipediocracy might be friends, and indeed that the word "friends" might be more offensive to you than the word "fuck". What term would you prefer to apply, collaborators, fellow members or something else? Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm highly offended by the word "friend", not by the way you used it to imply my support for people and actions you and I both disapprove of. Honestly, Fae, has anyone ever told you that when you're in a hole you should stop digging? Rd232 ^talk 15:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Streisand effect running count:

• number of threads on this topic in the last week at WP:AN, one of the more high-profile places on English Wikipedia: 2
• number of people with references to Wikipediocracy in their signature: 2

In short,

1. Talk about Wikipediocracy in an unstructured way, constantly complaining and trying unsuccessfully to find a way to censor it and vilify anyone who's ever engaged with it. Compare: commons:Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions‎ structured discussion trying to find solutions.
2. ??
3. Profit.

Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

By all means raise an RFC to help focus discussions if that is your primary objection to a discussion of this issue on AN. I note that "Commons is not Wikipedia" has become a bit of a mantra by us Commonists, the reverse also applies. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone else can start an RFC, if they think it'll achieve anything (and maybe just stopping the endless AN circles is worth something). The same arguments apply as in the Commons RFC, and that RFC already had some results (a contact email for the site moderators). I don't see anything different or better coming out of another RFC here, though. PS I'm not objecting to discussion on AN at all. Can you stop insinuating things? Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, "constantly complaining and trying unsuccessfully to find a way to censor it and vilify anyone who's ever engaged with it" read as an objection to me. --Fæ (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but is it an objection to discussion at AN? (no, it is not). See below on your apparent inability to discuss this topic rationally. Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, making quotes bold-italic in addition to using quotemarks why? Rd232 ^talk 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Making a claim that simple questions of transparency is an attempt at censorship seems less than rational to me too. Maybe we have a fundamental rift between our points of view as to what such words actually mean. --Fæ (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to your entire approach (including supporting the spam-blacklisting on Commons - and presumably here too, if you thought you could get support for it), so we needn't argue definitions of censorship here. Rd232 ^talk 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Say, Fae, since you're now the world's leading advocate of transparency, how about a re-do of your RfA but this time you reveal your previous WP usernames. Then people will be able to make a decision with all the necessary facts at hand. You should welcome that, yes? Carrite (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, which Wikipediocracy account was yours again? I'm sure you want to set a lead on transparency yourself. Thanks for calling me a world leading advocate of something other than gay sex for a change. Signing off, see below. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following your 2 and 3? unhip Nobody Ent 15:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a South Park meme, apparently. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While everyone's looking the other way...

While the "outing/threat/etc." is certainly interesting in the dramatic sense, did anyone notice that the guy being "targeted" by this ended up deleting an article he created to "resolve a COI issue"? Did anyone notice that an administrator who has been a very vocal and active participant in the "paid editor/advocate" debate seems to have been advertizing his services as a paid editor on the QT?

While I personally think implying that the guy's boss should be called up is out of bounds, it does seem as if Wikipediocracy has identified an actual problem here that's been completely lost in this discussion. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not lost but deliberately ignored, as the misdeeds of administrators so often are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

SB_Johnny good point. Perhaps the easy answer is to post complaints and information about any perceived issues on wiki where they actually count, rather than supporting attack forums owned by banned users and where comparisons of people like myself to current investigations by the authorities into deaths of gay people, or use of "faggot" jokes are part of the culture of harassment, privacy invading outing and general abuse? Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As you well know, the "fae got"/"faggot" post was removed. Would it kill you to acknowledge that some people are trying to make it a more sensible place? It's like tarring all Wikipedians with the same brush, because some people are vandals. (And by editing WP, even reverting vandalism, you're supporting vandalism...) Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it kill me? Well, there was no sanction against Gregory Kohs despite the "faggot" post being directly in contravention of policy. Posts making smears against my character such as attempting to associate me with the death of Gareth Williams are routine. I see little for me or you to celebrate due to the current claims of improvement, when Gregory Kohs remains the owner (hardly comparable to a Wikipedia vandal) and benefits personally by the website increasing in popularity and he along with obvious trolls remain free to make disturbing allegations of fraud and risky sexual practices against me in conjunction with posting links to my professional profile and ensuring my full legal name is against every allegation. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, Fae, if you think that's very bad behavior, maybe you might want to stop making assertions about G. K. using his real name on a website that has considerably more Google juice than Wikipediocracy. It's become a bit of a volley at this point, if you see what I mean. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"attempting to associate me with the death of Gareth Williams". The thread in question (since you misrepresent it and apparently don't care about the Streisand effect) does nothing of the sort. For reasons known to some, it's Williams' lifestyle which draws first silly speculation that he might be a Wikipedia admin, and then comparison with your good self. And eminently ignorable internet chatter - why draw attention to it by mentioning at least twice in this thread? Rd232 ^talk 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that with respected users such as yourself, saying it was becoming a "sensible place", these minor illustrations out of months of allegations which I find abusive, hateful and potentially damaging bring the matter into sharp focus even if you and fellow Wikipediocracy contributors are keen to dismiss these examples as "internet chatter". Of course I am happy to keep examples to my own case rather than forcing allegations made about so many other Wikipedians under the spotlight unnecessarily, particularly if you are then to immediately provide direct links to Gregory Kohs' website. As you are even-handed, I can only assume that you would find reasons to dismiss all other statements as "internet chatter" if unwarranted comparisons were drawn for other Wikipedians who happened to be members of non-LGBT minority groups where there were police investigations into claims of murder or other serious crimes. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was some people are trying to make it a more sensible place. Is a couple of paragraphs up really too far to check that? But on this subject, you just don't seem able to discuss rationally. I mean are you really insinuating homophobia on my part - that I'm only dismissing the comparison between you and a person in the news as "ignorable internet chatter" because you happen to share a sexual orientation?? And you're consistently trying to make every bit of nonsense a federal case, talking about "allegations" and mentioning police investigations with no conceivable relevance and at every opportunity implying some sort of homophobic conspiracy. You should have stopped digging a long time ago, but you just don't seem able to. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I hardly think I'm insinuating anything of the sort, that seems to be you making inferences, I am surprised that you are playing the homophobia card here when I prefer to stick to cases and examples. I expect you to be fully even handed. In that spirit, could you please find some "internet chatter" making hateful claims about other Wikipedians on Wikipediocracy that involve serious crimes such as murder, and other minority groups, say, blacks or Jews rather than sexuality? If you can not, and the only type of offensive "internet chatter" relates to members of the LGBT community, then you might see an odd pattern to consider and reflect on what that means for the Wikipediocracy community you are a part of. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I hardly think I'm insinuating anything of the sort "hardly"? You should know whether you are insinuating or not. But your claim that you're not "playing the homophobia card", as you put it, is then immediately undermined by a demand for proof that people on Wikipediocracy aren't in fact homophobic, seemingly in the form of a statistical demonstration of equal opportunity insults. And you've again thrown in a reference to "serious crimes such as murder" for no discernable reason. Just stop digging already. Really. Rd232 ^talk 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, Fae :/. I have no idea what Rd's sexual orientation is (and frankly you have no idea what mine is), but there are openly LGBT people in the management of the site, and I haven't seen them getting any ill treatment because of it. There are more than a few references to your conspiracy theories, because you sometimes give the impression that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they're bigots (to the point where it's become almost a meme at this point).

And just FYI, the "murder investigation cross-dressing" crack wasn't about you at all, but rather about a person who used to be part of the management at WR (and is banned from WP, though probably contributing under another name). It really isn't always about you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

SB_Johnny I don't think Gareth Williams was part of the management at WR, was he? You seem to be talking about different examples. As for the sexual orientation of any of the contributors here, I have made absolutely no insinuation or assumption about it. I find it entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether anyone contributes to Wikipediocracy or uses it to attack people or not. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but the cross-dressing civil servant being referenced was. You're missing a bit of history there (email me if you want a quick explainer, I'm not interested in beating the guy up in public). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd232 I'll take your answer as a no. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure - take my refusal to accept your ridiculous premise (that everyone should be attacked equally, because life's fair like that) as an inability to prove or disprove the insinuation you base on it. That's par for the course for this discussion. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think your signature only raises the standing and profile of Wikipediocracy, and drives plenty of traffic there? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Snowolf Not nearly as much as having Arbcom members, Oversighters, Administrators and Commons Administrators posting there and then taking action on-wiki without being required to make their interest transparent or clear. By the way, it's not my signature, only a demonstration that the majority of people posting in this thread so far are Wikipediocracy members which may indicate that we have a problem with the Administrator's Noticeboard being manipulated by a tag team. In a thread about Wikipediocracy, mentioning "Wikipediocracy" a few more times makes no effective difference if you are worried about the much quoted Streisand effect - which has been worn tissue thin as a reason to never mention or discuss this issue openly on-wiki. Thanks I am not a Wikipediocrat and I do not canvass on Wikipediocracy. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind that some of the people there are either not permitted to post here, are opposed to participating here (for whatever reason), or are worried that they'll be blocked or banned for saying something unflattering about somebody in the cabals (for example, Bali ultimate was quickly blocked on commons for bringing up something you didn't want discussed). Fortunately there are people like you and I who can bring it to the proper forum here "on wiki" where it can "do some good", right :-)? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May be people who are banned here but still want to have themselves heard should first get unbanned? And btw there was a long thread here about paid editing several days ago, without any references to any external sites.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the difficulty in getting a ban lifted, and the distasteful nature of having to "grovel" at the feet of whomever it is you're trying to convince in a very public manner. Anyway, what's the big deal if somebody discusses it there rather than here? It's not like you have to walk 2 miles uphill in the snow to see what's being said ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I should add to that: anyone who brought up the issue of this sub-thread would have been blocked in an instant, and the issue that is being lost in the drama above would have been buried. I'm not sure it's resolved now, but it does relate to the difficulties with the "no paid editing" stuff in the context of an anonymous community that has been the topic of considerable debate lately. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind

There's no point in discussing this when the discussion itself gets hijacked by Wikipediocracy members, as almost everyone posting above is. I'm just going to keep working on my list until it gets to the point where i've compiled enough evidence to get further action taken. Silverseren^C 18:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. I no longer believe that on AN we can have any discussion on Wikipediocracy or deal with sanctions on its members without serious concerns about the influence of the blatant travelling circus over the true consensus of the wider community. I guess this thread at least demonstrates that much, thanks for trying. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fae, I think it's certainly demonstrated that any Wikipediocracy thread with you in it is unlikely to be productive. Silver seren, if you want some more constructive discussion to happen, I invite you to follow the example of my Commons RFC (there are several links above, so I won't dig it out again). Rd232 ^talk 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not only am I world class, but I have supergay powers to disrupt the entire force of the travelling circus. Thanks for the encouragement Rd232. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Facepalm Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • I see that your Commons discussion was also not very productive, because every Wikipediocracy member (more or less) was involved in it and obfuscating getting any sort of actual "Commons" consensus on the matter. Silverseren^C 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, if you start with the premise that anyone who has a Wikipediocracy account is merely generating random noise when they post onwiki (l;ks kugpe8g-0 0898-0 089-8]-9 8-98]-8 ]-]89-] lklkjkljklj;l l;kjl;jk;jj) then yes, it was a waste of time. Apart from the concrete result of producing a way to contact the moderators without needing an account, of course. Rd232 ^talk 18:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC) comment from Wikipediocracy poster censored as invalid. Rd232 ^talk 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

UTRS Backlog

Hi Folks. There are currently 49 brand new appeals needing attention on UTRS. If anyone has a spare minute and an account, please help clear this. If you don't have an account, register and I'll activate you (sysops only please). While I am here, there are also 8 needing checkuser attention.--v/r - TP 22:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I cleared the checkuser queue. AGK [•] 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--v/r - TP 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just registered, hopefully I can be of help. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And me! Secretlondon (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your accounts are both now activated and usable with regular admin access (if you require advanced access like CU, please speak to Tparis or another tool dev. I'm just a lowly tool admin!). Thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cut it down by a bunch. I'll try to get to some more later tonight and we'll see if we can't collectively get it under control. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've registered as well, awaiting confirmation. Hopefully I can be of some assistance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it down to about 2 now. Secretlondon (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help taking it down. It exploded today!--v/r - TP 03:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

HKCABLE-HK round-robin proxy needs a softblock

Short summary

61.18.0.0 - 61.18.255.255 (61.18.0/16) should be soft blocked (allow account creation) as a round-robin proxy. Alternatively 61.18.170.0/24 may be enough.

tool server report

Longer

Identifying this and researching the relevant proxy policy has been on my to-do list since March. This IP range is a medium sized ISP in Hong Kong and it puts all their users behind a transparent proxy - the same way that AOL did pre-2006. This has allowed disruption from these IPs to appear across the entire range of IP addresses. This has made the ISP popular with disruptive users and makes the disruption impossible to track. Something in the water in HK makes Wikipedia disruption a popular hobby so it is important to minimize enabling access proxies like this one. As far as I know, this ISP is not sending XFF data (you'd need to be a CU to know this) which was decided as a requirement for AOL and other ISPs using round-robin proxies.

Relevant policies that this is the appropriate action:

WP:AOL, obsolete in the case of AOL, because AOL started giving users public IP addresses even when proxied, and forwarded XFF data for those IPs. This policy is still relevant for this ISP because XFF data isn't being forwarded (and the IPs behind it are probably not public either, which is another requirement).

WP:OPENPROXY, anyone using this ISP is proxied. It may be a private proxy available to its users, but those users may be open access themselves (coffee shop, cybercafe, open wireless, etc). As a practical matter it is functioning as an open proxy to a limited geographic range. Private proxies are allowed when they have a single IP address (or manageable number) and an active abuse contact with WMF. These are usually corporate or academic proxies with enforceable policies, not ISPs with loose control over user activities. These are often soft-blocked as well. This ISP is not managing the IPs and isn't in contact with the WMF to track originating abuse.

I'm unsure if the entire assigned netblock is the open proxy or simply one subnet. I spent the morning exploring edits from 61.18.170.0/24 and found some IPs already blocked for disruption, but the admin probably didn't know it was a round-robin proxy. It may be enough to softblock just the /24 and wait and see what comes from the rest of the /16.

Thanks, SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My memory of the AOL case, which seems to be supported by the page, is that while we were willing to do short range softblocks as necessary in response to abuse (which meant editing anoymously from AOL could be difficult); we never implemented an indefinite range softblock until AOL became a true open proxy, which was when they did the same for anyone using their browser (rather then simply anyone using their services). I'm not saying we should do the same here, simply pointing out that it doesn't sound like the AOL example is what you want to actually follow/implement. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by the gross technical inaccuracies that SchmuckyTheCat, as a dedicated sock-hunter, has presented above. "Round-robin proxy" is an incorrect description of the situation; the correct description is "rotating DHCP". At any one time, any machine connected to the network is given a real IP. WP:Open proxy is therefore completely inapplicable to this IP range.

This ISP, iCable, is among the industry leaders in Hong Kong if not the largest, not a "medium-sized" ISP as SchmuckyTheCat claims. Nor could this ISP become "popular with disruptive users"; I hope you'd agree that changing your ISP to go into a rotating IP range would be rather too much dedication to disrupt Wikipedia. All major ISPs in Hong Kong use rotating IPs for its domestic users, and I was often gravely saddened by WP:collateral damage which auto-blocked me from editing Wikipedia on the charge of "open proxy". That was my real IP! It was one of the main reason which drove me to run for adminship - back then there was no "anon. only" block, and becoming an admin is the only certain way of avoiding being hurt by collateral damage. Now anon-only blocks have been invented, but the problem of collateral damage obviously remains with any ISP who uses rotating DHCP.

Yes, we recognise the problem of disruption from anonymous users, and I know which group of disruptive users you're talking about. But which part of the world doesn't give Wikipedia disruption? I'm afraid SchmuckyTheCat has taken his WP:forum shopping too far to oppress users who disagree with him in a potentially disruptive way. Whatever the reason, a rangeblock isn't the solution to the problem at hand. It merely turns away potential good-faith contributors in a time when, as SchmuckyTheCat complains, we have more than enough disruptive users already.

tl;dr: SchmuckyTheCat's report is technically incorrect and motivated by his personal on-wiki interest, and the proposed solution doesn't solve the problem. Deryck C. 16:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Physics education being redirected to benefit a webcomic punchline

Physics education has been redirected twice (1, 2) to Engineer, presumably after today's Xxcd webcomic published how - wait for it - physics education redirects to engineer. I am guessing, judging from the talk page, that this happens anytime Xkcd makes a similar sort of joke about Wikipedia. Maybe we should protect the page for a few days? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it happens every time. Physics major is already protected..... and nominated for deletion.....

Anyways, they have only done it a couple of times. There is no excessive edit-warring. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Physics education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) even worthy of its own separate article? I found Chemistry education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it does not appear that other fields have such articles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be enough material, try googling "Physics education" aristotle. See also Mathematics education. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And so it shall continue forever. I'm half-convinced that Randall's general plan is to convince Jimbo to divert some WMF funds towards him in exchange for never mentioning Wikipedia again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A blast from the past

Any old-timers around here who remember Jason Gastrich, life's not going so well for him right now and I am cleaning up and courtesy blanking the debates. There's low to zero chance he'll be back and no reason for us to keep a memorial to his youthful follies. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ooh, and I missed the drama of yet another attack site doing the same old shit. How will I console myself? Guy (Help!) 11:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, and good on you for taking the time to do this. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hate To Come Here For This, BUT......

I hate to come here for something so minor but I am hoping that someone can help me with THIS. I have had the notice there for a couple of days and was hoping that someone could assist. At this point, I am just looking for the single link to be unblocked so that I can update the article. The article is desperately in need of cleanup and there are very few "non-commercial" or "non-affilate" sources that I can use. This one (although associated with the industry monetarily) does have a good source that I would like to use. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You can still cite the webpage without providing the (full, clickable) URL, just as you could cite a printed source.  Sandstein  13:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So basically just keep the citation but do not make the link clickable? Example:

Online Scratch Cards. "Camelot Defends Against False Claims of Minors Gambling". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "www.online-scratch-card.com/news/2011/11/camelot-defends-against-false-claims-minors-gambling-854" ignored (help) --Morning277 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, what Sandstein said will work, but I took a look at the site itself and I do not think it meets WP:RS in the first place, I wrote a longer response here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#online-scratch-card. Zad68 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

THANKS! I left you a response on the blacklist page as well. Looks like the site was placed on the list as someone had previously tried to attach a link to the site under "External Links". Not sure if this was egregious or someone not understanding Wikipedia. Either way, I work in gaming in the US and was recently told about online scratch cards in the UK. I could not believe it but they do exist and I found info about it at Wiki. Thought I would improve the article but it can be difficult when you are looking for information about online gaming. There are too many affiliate sites that clog up the actual news about it. The article that I found was self-published but does show that there is controversy with using the online cards. Thanks again for your opinions and advice. I have made the changes to the article HERE. I took it from ZERO citations to Four. The link to the article would be nice to have but it "is what it is." I will be improving the article in the future (if I have time), but for now I have wasted too much time messing with the "link" issue that I feel my contributions to Wikipedia could be used elsewhere. --Morning277 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please welcome translators from Translators Without Borders

We are getting new editors who are translators with TWB as part of this collaboration here. Please welcome them and post any concerns on my talk page. There is a nice write in the Guardian about this [27] Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

MahdiBot

MahdiBot - Please block, bot running without flag or approval. Rcsprinter (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot owner seems to have stopped it after discussion here. Hut 8.5 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot until it gets approval at WP:BRFA and bureaucrat flagging; I have notified the bot owner on fa.wiki. Feel free to unblock once the BRFA is approved and bot appropriately flagged, or if it has been approved for testing. --MuZemike 23:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC at WT:MMANOT

An RfC has just been added to WT:MMANOT to amend notability requirements for individual events. I'm sorry if coming here was out of line. I figured that since this whole issue has been affecting the community, this would be the best place to advertise the RfC. Ishdarian 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As a editor involved in the locus of dispute, I would like to reccomend that it be promoted to WP:CENT so that there's a broad community consensus going forward. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a request at WP:CENT. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ultra, I fixed the link to the correct page for you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough. I did post the request at the talk page, though, not the actual WP:CENT page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin links script

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 don't know if anyone could help me with this... I used to have a script which put a few adminy links at the top of the page (next to watchlist, preferences, etc) so I could get directly to the admin dashboard, ANI, UAA, etc. That seems to have gone. I don't know if it's broken of I've managed to remove/delete some script that I need. Any advice? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it's back. Ignore me. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Gundagai article bullying

• Gundagai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gundagai Aboriginal lore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bullying continues on the Gundagai article page and on the Gundagai Aboriginal lore page. I have authored a lot of the content of the Gundagai article page and 99% of the Gundagai Aboriginal lore article page. Bidgee and mattinbgn trump up reverts, then bans and someone reverts what I put when I try to seek assistance as Jenks24 reverted my post on 5 March at the Village Pump. Currently after a "severe edit" by garyvines in February the Gundagai article page has several errors. Even the references are out of synch. I recently added another reference to the Jeanine Leane content in the authors section on the Gundagai article page, to go with the first reference I put. That got reverted. The Gundagai Aboriginal lore article page which is a page garyvines created, is inappropriately named as its content is not all Aboriginal lore or even folklore. The acknowledgement at the top of that Gundagai aboriginal lore page that Gundagai is a place of Aboriginal significance was out there by garyvines who is an archaeologist so the significance of the place is recognised, but then the vandals who put other stuff and/or prevent things being corrected mess everything up. Any attempt by me to put a link to Gundagai Aboriginal lore article page from the Gundagai article page gets reverted. This bullying on the gundagai article page has been going on for several years. Lies re me also get told. That is all pretty crook but the mess these antics from the perpetrators make of the article pages and wikipedia is pretty sad. Currently they are putting on edit summaries that I can return from being banned if I contact them. Why would I want to be contacting bullies and liars. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.240.201 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You've posted this... well, everywhere, near as I can tell. Let's keep discussion in one place, shall we? Unless there are comments at the other village pump/help desk discussions, I'd suggest that place be here for the moment. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. This editor was banned in 2006, and due to constant evasion of said ban has yet to actually see it out, even though it was only supposed to last a year. WP:RBI is the way to go. Jenks24 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree. The last block was a rangeblock on several IP ranges in January 2011; might that be an option here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that his range is 144.128.0.0/12, the only other option to stop this is semi-protection and, failing that, full-protection. --MuZemike 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why no one has acted on the "Gundagai Anon"'s above trolling, it has no place here. Please deal with them, we are getting sick of them and the false accusations. Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With no blocks in over a year, is it possible that the IP finally heeded the ban? I've not checked the page history, and except for the IPs of this person who were bugging me last year after I blocked one of them, I've not been at all involved. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I reported the Anon on IRC a number of times but no one did anything, myself and others just gave up reporting them. The Anon didn't take heed of the ban, if they didn't edit the Gundagai article there were making false accusations. I'm really disappointed that Mattinbgn and myself have to put up with the Anon's bullshit and harassment. Bidgee (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Both pages are now semiprotected for a year; feel free to ask me for more semiprotections of comparable lengths, or feel free to unprotect/reduce protection or to request either of them without notifying me first. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed for RFC

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, JCAla has copy pasted the sources he is using to support his view atleast four times in an RFC creating WP:WALLSOFTEXT (with the first being a separate section he created for the sources) - as of this version [28]. Just referring to that section later might have been fine but copy pasting those sources everywhere seems disruptive to me. Given the insistence and that this debate has been brought up by the same user repeatedly (so many times after being settled) I think an uninvolved admin who does not have an opinion on the dispute might help by keeping a watch at such issues. This is not the first time so I'm requesting an admin to take a look himself rather than creating a drama by reporting behaviour issues at ANI. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I was explicitly asked by User:Stfg to provide the sources to him, although they were already present in the source section. Stfg: "If any government denials are now superseded by later government admissions, please show sources for that." Edit summary saying: "what you need to show". In order to make it easier for Stfg to find the explicit 2-3 sources (out of dozens in the source list) I was referring to I copy pasted them under his request as well as RP's statement who is an admin, btw. That's it. In the context of a new discussion with Samar, I quoted a totally new source to him which was not in the source list, but have now referred him to Stfg's section, so he can look up that new source there, although it would have been easier to have it straight in our discussion. Anyways. It is telling that TopGun, instead of staying on topic, is trying to counter the contents of the sources by going to AN and again unnerving everyone who is tired of the same names popping up again and again. JCAla (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not likely still, but you only (apparently) justified a single repetition there. RP has given an opinion there so he can't act as an admin, nor is your copy paste there justified. I'm sticking to the topic, but this was not something to be ignored. I will not reply to this further to prevent a useless debate about debate, that's why I've asked here that an admin checks out himself. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what. Stfg explicitly asked for the sources. Samar (with whom there was an interesting discussion going on) I have now referred to Stfg's section. So, that is cleared. As for regentspark, I am goint to ask him on his talk, if he thinks citing these sources was too much. With that I am done here. JCAla (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the issue is hereby solved then. JCAla (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My request to check still stands, this is not about a single reply to RP. It is at 4-5 instances which are still there (and it doesn't hurt to have an uninvolved admin keeping an eye at a contentious dispute like this). Please do not mark issues as solved again when you are an involved party unless you initiated a request. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone hat the walls of text and let's move on. Why do you two constantly need to bicker? TopGun, JCAla's wall-o-sources is about the least important things on WP:AN and WP:ANI right now. No admin is going to waste their time. This isn't worth arguing about. If it's such a serious matter to you, you need to pick your battles better. What do you want to happen? Do you want me to indef-block JCAla and proceed with a Site-ban discussion for JCAla over him presenting sources? Get a reality check here.--v/r - TP 16:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Suncor Website

Resolved

 – no admin action required, discuss on talk page Nobody Ent 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I posted the following paragraph about a large Benzene spill from the Suncor refinery in Commerce City, CO in the Fall of 2011 - in fact it is ongoing (May 2012) The paragraph was deleted by Peter McKenzie-Brown (Pmbcomm) "a free lance artist specializing in crude oil who has worked in the corporate, consulting and academic worlds" I suspect this editor is a paid contributor, since he should have no reason to polish the Suncor website. The below paragraph is based on facts readily available.

Benzene Spill Commerce City, Colorado

November 28, 2011 The United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA was notified by a fisherman of a gasoline-like substance leaking into Sand Creek in Commerce City, CO. Benzene levels in the Sand Creek was measured as high as 720 parts per billion (ppb) January 9, 2012[18] at the confluence with the adjoining South Platte River. In the South Platte River levels have been measured above 300 ppb several times in April 2012[19]. These levels continue to be monitored. The Environmental Protection Agency has defined benzene as a toxin with multiple adverse health effects, many potentially lethal[20]. Despite mitigation efforts that have included building a trench, pumping and treating contaminated groundwater and aerating soil and water to release benzene. The source of the leak is still undetermined. An underground plume containing benzene, measured as high as 10000 ppb, and other chemicals is spreading underground under the adjacent Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant and nearly reaching the South Platte River upriver from the confluence with Sandy Creek. April 2, 2012 Suncor was fined $2.2 million by Colorado Department of Public Health for pollution violations[21]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssomme (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't warrant any administrative notification. You should discuss it on the Talk page. For what it's worth, I agree with the other editor that your new section is overkill (too much detail). It also needs some, uh, cleaning up. Finally, there is no basis for you to accuse the editor of being a "paid contributor". You also failed to notify him, as per the instructions on this board, which I have done for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Agreeing with Bbb23. Looks like a good faith edit to me (please read WP:AGF). In my opinion the paragraph you are trying to insert is too much detail about a single incident, in the context of the entire company's history. (FWIW I've never met an oil refinery that didn't have groundwater contamination, with benzene being one of the commonest contaminants.) I'd suggest working it out on the talk page; don't edit-war your text back in, and see WP:BRD. Antandrus (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits related to Vera Peterson pages

Relevant pages are: Vera Peterson, Talk:List of recurring Cheers characters, List of recurring Cheers characters, and Cheers

I made edits to reflect the fact that Vera Peterson is no an "Unseen character". User:Snappy disagreed with my changes and reverted them. What followed was a series of edits and a brief discussion of them at Talk:List of recurring Cheers characters. Snappy has been uncivil in the discussion, has violated 3RR and admitted as much in his reply to me on User talk:Snappy, and falsely accused me of being "an IP hopping vandal". I would ask that this user be warned about his willful violation of 3RR and his making flase accusations just because he disagrees with me about an edit. I will not be making any further changes to the above mentioned pages until an administrator can address the matter. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP user above is also 99.192.72.5, and has been using both addresses to violate 3RR, so this is the "IP hopping vandalism" I was referring to. He has admitted as much on my talk page, which on Vera Peterson, he violated 3RR first. I too violated 3RR, I regret doing and I note that user:99.192.88.40/99.192.72.5 has now reverted back to his/her version. I thought I was improving the Category:Unseen Characters by adding Vera, (I was looking at it for another reason and saw the omission). Many references provided at the talk page back me up on this but they were not good enough for user:99.192.88.40/99.192.72.5. At no point was I uncivil to user:99.192.88.40/99.192.72.5, I merely pointed out that they were using multiple addresses. They replied that I was being uncivil but later confirmed, that it was them, using both those addresses. Snappy (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on Snappy's talk page my ISP uses dynamic IP addresses. I have no control over when it changes or what it changes to. In fact, I was not even aware it had changed while making these edits. I made no effort to hide who I was and never denied making edits that I made. I also have explained to Snappy on his talk page that I did not violate 3RR, but it seems he wants to count an initial edit that was not a revert as if it were one. But at least he is now admitting he broke the 3RR rule. Also, the incivility started when he accused me of "edit warring" the first time I reverted his edits. One revert does not a war make. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, technically your first edit (using 99.192.72.5) wasn't a revert but it was a partial revert of my change, then you made three further edits using 99.192.88.40. So while you may not have violated the technicalities of 3RR, you certainly violated the spirit of it. Now you are just wikilawyering in order to explain your actions. Is something stopping you for registering as a normal user instead of hiding behind multiple IPs? At no point was I uncivil, merely pointing out your actions. Snappy (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

IP editors are human, too ... and many people's IP addy changes on a regular basis. Editing without a named account, and having changeable IP addresses, is not necessarily a sign of anybody "hiding" anything at all or anything else underhand. As for anonymity, I really doubt whether your actual name is "Snappy" ;P Pesky (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

List of anime conventions

Is there any way to protect this page for the long term? I had asked a month or so ago for protection for the article but it was only done for 2 months, the issue being that there are tons of edits made by anon and new editors that do not follow the notice that states: "This list is subject to the WP:LISTCOMPANY guideline. Please familiarize yourself with it before editing this list. In addition, note that any new entry must have an adequately sourced Wikipedia article. Before adding a convention to this list, write the article first if the convention passes the inclusion critiera for a stand-alone article. Any convention which does not have articles will be removed. Do not add multi-genre conventions, which are outside the scope of this list." There is a big yellow box in place when you goto edit the page and in addition a hidden notice up at the very top and still editors add conventions without making the article first and non-notable conventions. I would love to hope these edits are done in good faith but im not sure if some are done by vandalism and this has been an ongoing problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• They aren't vandalism, even if they are bothersome and inappropriate, as the faith of the editors seems ok. The place to go for page protection requests is WP:RPP rather than here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 05:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

La Costa

Some page history seems to be missing at La Costa, which was formerly at LaCosta Tucker — everything from before I pagemoved it a while back is missing. Can someone figure out where the history went? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Five pages are intertwined due to a series of pagemoves:

• La Costa
• La Costa Resort and Spa
• La Costa (disambiguation)
• LaCosta
• LaCosta Tucker

Have you checked all of those without finding the missing revisions? What's surely complicating matters is that we have at least one copy/paste move in the La Costa page history. While none of the other pages have been deleted, La Costa has been deleted three times and restored once, leaving seven currently-deleted edits, as follows:

• IP creates page, September 2005
• Same IP edits page, a few minutes later
• A different IP tags it as a copyvio three months later. The page was soon deleted by Sherool, who "restored 11 revisions" a few minutes later; I'm not sure which ones those are.
• Tewapack moves it to La Costa Resort and Spa, January 2008.
• You tag the redirect with db-move to allow you to move the singer article over the redirect, August 2010. The page was soon deleted by PeterSymonds.
• You move the page to La Costa (disambiguation), a few hours ago
• You tag the redirect with db-move to allow you to move the singer article over the redirect, a few seconds later.

All this is to say that I'm not sure where the revisions are, but I'd like to be sure that you've looked in all of these places first. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha, found it. The history is currently at La Costa (disambiguation). Can you move every edit there from this backwards onto La Costa please? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

About to start; everyone else, please stay away to avoid deletion conflicts :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Please look over the page histories again to make sure that everything is where it should be. Note that there are some repairs of double redirects currently in the history of La Costa; please check to see if there are any misplaced edits that could be related to those. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

LocalSettings.php

I would to create the article from [[29]]. UA31 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the Spanish Wikipedia, but that file fails the notability requirement. It's documented in English on MediaWiki.org.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Right here.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've turned it into a redirect to MediaWiki. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects backog (nothing a non-admin-bot could do)

Could an admin please clean these up?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for second opinion

I've been largely inactive for the last five months, but I came back today briefly to check up on a company that called back and while here swung past USS Iowa (BB-61) since shes in the news again. In light of the fact that the battleship is making headlines for her recent donation, and owing to the article's current Featured Article status I made a decision to implement semi-protection for the article so that milhist and OMT members do not have to spend the next three weeks constantly reverting changes made the public as they arrive here looking for information on the battleship, however as I have noted above being largely absent for the last five months or so means being out of the loop concerning new policy and guideline material, and I would like a second opinion on this matter so as to ensure that I haven't overstepped my authority here. Apologies on advance for the request, but I would rather have someone check my actions here now and call me for screwing up rather than be dragged before the board such as it were later for over exceeding my authority on the matter. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe standard practice is not to preemptively protect. Wait until there actually is vandalism and then block for the period of the events that brought attention and vandalism to the article.--v/r - TP 04:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review Closed

The arbitration review of the Race and Intelligence case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Mathsci (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct
2. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Captain Occam (talk · contribs) are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
3. SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.
4. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

86.** IP and writing about fiction guidelines/essays

Bad block

I was blocked because false information was presented about me in the edit warring noticeboard, and I got upset about this. Instead of dealing with the false parts of the accusations, EdJohnston insisted that - although I had opened talk page conversations about the sections in dispute - that me being upset about the misinformation being spread about me - which the reporter refused to retract - was sufficient grounds to block.

Specifically, Masem listed me reverting myself as part of a supposed 3RR violation (as well as listing a false diff as the one being reverted to), and Ridernyc claimed that me setting out my proposal on the talk page was me editing the policy again. These were probably down to errors. Masem's refusal to correct this error, however, shows poor behaviour on his part

I was unable to get the block reviewed throughout the lenght of the block, being told I wasn't allowed to complain about the actions of other people when appealing a block - when the fact that false information was provided in the section asking for the block was rather significant.

I think this demonstrates a major problem with Wikipedia. If you perpetrate bad blocks, it's going to drive people off Wikipedia. Indeed, I feel little urge to edit here anymore. The extreme rudeness of admins, visible in User_talk:86.**_IP#Edit_warring_at_Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.2FWriting_about_fiction, and claims that because the block is short, it being unjust doesn't matter, are also extremely bad.

You often talk about how you have trouble keeping editors. If editors are prone to Kangaroo courts - and this is the second such I have experienced, both led by EdJohnston (the previous involved an editor on one side of the dispute pointing out a 1RR that I wasn't aware of - then saying that as he reverted it already, I should agree not to edit the article for a month instead of correcting something that had already been corrected.

EdJohnston's blocks seem to be capricious, partisan, and prone to presume the accused is always wrong. He allows one side of an editing dispute to silence the other side simply by calling on him to act first, and any objection to the other side's proposed solution to the dispute - or even complaining about direct lies in the filing on the edit warring page - is considered evidence you will continue edit warring, even if you have agreed to stop editing the page, and take it to talk long before.

This is terrible. This is nothing but Wikipedia bullying editors, and treating being upset at gross injustice as proof of guilt.

86.** IP (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm "the reporter" that 86.** is talking about, I will still not retract that 86's actions in said case follow WP:DUCK-like 3RR edit warring, even if 1) they weren't reverting to exactly the same revision and 2) it wasn't within the 24hr period. It is completely fair to put that type of behavior up for review at the EW noticeboard. 86 was free to challenge that and claim "no, that's really not a revert" or similar, and the closing admin would determine the strength of the argument. If the admin closed it as "no 3RR", I would have shrugged and moved on. That's the whole point of the EW noticeboard. I, as an admin, could just have easily blocked 86 right then and there on said claims (ignoring the fact that I was involved), but only then would 86 have a valid complaint that I was falsely accusing him without recourse. I would have then expected admin review potential action against myself in that scenario. Instead, I put it to discussion at the noticeboard.

Instead of calming arguing against why his actions weren't edit warring, 86 took the path of claiming false accusations and lying and effectively was blocked because of the bad behavior in responding to standard dispute resolution paths, not only issuing from that case but other more recent discussions where other editors found him behavior tenacious and unproductive. The block - only 24hr - was completely fair for a cooling off period. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you deny that your first edit reported was me reverting myself, and that you got the diff being reverted to wrong? If you make a mistake, you need to correct it. Standing by falsehoods moves you from mistaken to malicious.

EdJohnston shows no evidence of having considered the factual nature of the accusations. Indeed, on my talk page, he states that my complaining about the false information was why he blocked me. [30] Therefore, your presenting false information, which he did not check, was the only reason you managed to get me blocked. You can't do that. You cannot lie about someone, then say it's alright, because they had a chance to complain that you lied. 86.** IP (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It may have been an edit to a previous thing you had, but in the pattern it is one step of consideration. When presenting EW dispute cases, you put forth all the available evidence; the closing admin judges the value of each. So yes, the first diff is as you say, but I stand by that it is relevant to the case and not a mistake to incldue in consider the EW pattern. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll also point out that it still is your attitude that is the core problem. If you had responded calmly at the 3RR, dismissing the claims in a rationale manner, it might have well been dismissed and life moves on. Instead, you shout your head off and throw accusations at people. That is not accepted behavior at WP, regardless of what page you're editing at. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This dispute is about an important MOS page, the fiction guideline at WP:MOSWAF. It is unpleasant to have to lock down a major guideline when (as it seemed to me) one of the parties was doing a poor job of negotiation and seemed like they were going to revert indefinitely. The dispute was from May 4 through 7. Over that period 86.** reverted about six times. Nobody supported his changes. The edit-warring complaint that led to this 24-hour block was here. Note my offer both earlier in the day and also in the closing statement that "If you will commit to a plan for reaching consensus and abiding by the result, this block can be lifted." Three other admins declined a succession of unblock requests. In none of those cases did 86.** IP agree to accept consensus. His complaints were addressed to what he saw as flaws in the original report. The block didn't assume the correctness of the original report. After seeing the report, I did my own analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am strongly leaning towards full-protecting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction for at least 3 months until the users can get themselves together. Failing that, blocks will occur. --MuZemike 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• You'll only exacerbate the problem with the latter. The problem here is that several people are operating without thought. More I-don't-care-I'm-just-going-to-block-on-the-numbers heavyhandedness won't improve the situation. But page protection I support, because the edit warriors (and I'm including you and Ridernyc in this, Masem), are at this stage not even hitting "show changes" or "show preview" to see what their reflex reverts are doing. The changes to the page need to stop, because the page is suffering as the edit warriors substitute reversion for editing. In this edit for example, a reversion (which I agree appears to be a self reversion after realizing that one has removed more than was intended) a "fair use" section, whose placement and first paragraph are disputed, ends up occurring twice on the page. But the edit summary for this edit indicates that people are substituting edit summaries for the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "People" aren't substituting edit summaries for the talk page, only User:86.** IP is. Masem, Ridernyc and myself have all independently reached the conclusion that the changes made by 86 are somewhere between suboptimal and unacceptable. 86 then plays deaf and tries to push through his changes to the guideline. Where exactly did Masem and Ridernyc go wrong? 86's edits are clearly controversial and have been met with unanimous opposition. Of course we reverted those changes and asked 86 to engage in talk page discussion. He refused. So how is any of that anyone else's fault and not solely 86's? I can't even believe what I'm reading. Masem and myself responded to 86's posting at WT:WAF. He didn't even bother to reply. Neither does he appear to get the message at WP:PLOTSUM. Instead he runs here complaining about "lies" and the entirely appropriate block against him. You're saying we're to blame that we reverted this person's edits? Seriously? Seriously? --87.78.0.224 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You realise I could not participate in discussion, because I was blocked. Further Masem has generally approved the majority of the 6 proposals, you are the only one opposing at the moment, which is a 2:1 majority in favour of (most of) them as it stands. This is yet another attempt to distract the issue with blatant untruths. 86.** IP (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm saying what I actually wrote. Yes, people are using edit summaries in place of the talk page. Masem's placement of talk page discussion in an edit summary is in the very next edit after that diff. Rydernyc even used Twinkle's vandalism rollback tool, mislabelling the disputed changes as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• MuZemike, why would you bother posting such a "tough on crime" heavy-handed comment? It's quite obvious that you haven't actually looked into the recent history of WAF and its talk page. Whom else besides User:86.** IP are you considering for a block? Who else made any edit against consensus besides 86.**? This is a completely onesided "conflict". --87.78.0.224 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to see where you've all taken User:Uncle G/Describe this universe, by the way, and how far you have run with the ball after picking it up. ☺ A warning to article writers of the fair use concerns is a good idea, that I probably would have got around to in an alternative universe. Your disagreement is in part over what the case law actually implies and even is. Take that to the talk page.

And remember that even a manual of style can use footnotes and further reading. Why not cite the cases and some expert legal analyses, as you would in a (well written) article? Then this situation won't be so likely to happen in the future. (Yes, I know that you tried to do that once. You forgot to put a <references>...</references> tag and section in, though, so the citation was invisible. How ironic that a manual of style page wasn't kept up to the standards of the manual of style!)

Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Again this all could be avoided with discussion IP.**.86 seems reluctant to take part in. It was only after things were taken to the 3RR notice board that this editor responded to any requests for discussion. Also the fact that we are still here once again talking about how unfair the world is to IP.**.86 shows where the problems lie. IP.**.86 is rude, edits with an agenda, and refuses to talk to other editors until things are taken to ridiculous extremes. The course any rational editor would have taken would be just to sit out the block and move on with editing the article in question, instead we are here once again discussing how unfair the world is to IP.**.86. Ridernyc (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also what exactly is the purpose of bringing this here now. What is AN/I going to do about this? Just more distraction from forming a consensus. Ridernyc (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is how the talk page discussion stands at this time:

	Positive	Neutral	Opposed
Proposal 1	Me, Masem (for see also)		213.196.211.143
Proposal 2	Me, Masem ("starting point")		213.196.211.143
Proposal 3	Me	Masem (needs more discussion)	213.196.211.143
Proposal 4	Me	Masem (add more content as well)	213.196.211.143
Proposal 5	Me, Masem ("That's fine")		213.196.211.143
Proposal 6	Me, Masem ("That's fine")		213.196.211.143

So these are not the horribly controversial proposals they're being painted as. The initial discussion shows many have a general level of support, and only an IP user has opposed. The reverts give the strong appearance of ones that did not actually review the content. 86.** IP (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is the second admin noticeboard report about basically the same issue. drop the fricking stick (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Again why is this being discussed here at all. Move on and just discuss your changes there. Not sure why you keep making a mountain out of a mole hill instead of just discussing your changes which is what I advised you to do several times. You where not blocked because of the content of your edits, you were blocked because you insist on arguing and using foul langue instead of just discussing your edits. GO to the talk page and discuss your proposals, simple. Ridernyc (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This was a bad block, based on an administrator treating upset at an inaccurate claim about my edits as proof of wrongdoing. If people can get one blocked simply by lying about their edits, that's a major problem for Wikipedia, and needs corrected. 86.** IP (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello, and welcome to planet Earth. Have you met the humans? They're not telepathic, not clairvoyant, and all of the time have to work from limited information and heuristic mental models, the poor wolflings. Some of them even have the nutty idea that they can band together and write a Branch Library of their own, from scratch. Can you imagine? Uncle Galactic (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I will just take the time to point, this editor is still making changes to fiction related guidelines without prior discussion [31], I'm not sure what is so hard about talking about changes to guidelines before editing. Ridernyc (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not a guideline, that's an essay, and one that misquotes policy, as explained on the talk page. Again, you are being misleading about the content of my edits, by claiming it's a guideline. Can we have some basic respect for truth? 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again before I can even correct myself, the persecution and lier allegations start. You are correct it's an essay and labled as an essay therefore there is no reason that it's needs to match policy and really no reason to edit war over it. Again why can't you simply discuss your changes BEFORE you make them? Ridernyc (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit confluct] Indeed, I don't think that there can be anything controversial about the edit Ridernyc quoted if you read the discussion on the talk page. The guidelines and policy quoted unambiguously were being misrepresented in the essay. They did not quite say what the essay said they said. This is basically editing policy and guidelines by the back door. If I write an essay stating "The WP:NPOV policy requires us to present companies and people in a favourable light, eliminating anything that might cause them offense" , the essay would be deleted or edited to be in line with policy. However, apparently, in this case, you can make up what policy says. No, you can't. 86.** IP (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, a little bit of advice, Rider. In a discussion about people being careless with the truth, if you know you have an issue with misstating things, double check before hitting save. It looks really bad if you're falsely attacking me for something in the middle of claiming that I should stop complaining about being falsely accused of things. 86.** IP (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As we all can see this editor refuse to discuss changes and form consensus and will argue endlessly when asked to do so. Moving on as there things to actually work on and edit warring over every essay, guideline, and policy on fiction is not my agenda. Ridernyc (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Rider, you did three reverts on the page, and are the only person involved in the edit war not to have taken things to the talk page. Instead of acting as if there werent' ongoing discussions about all the edits, and attacking me for... um... having not moved things to the talk page, except I did... maybe you should actually participate in the discussions instead of pretending they don't exist in order to attack me for not discussing things. 86.** IP (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There's two issues here. One of them can be sorted out with discussion on the talk page - which discussion has been opened. The other is the bad block by EdJohnston, and the kangaroo court nature of that block. That cannot be dealt with on the article talk page, so it has to be discussed here. 86.** IP (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[32] First thing I ever said to and it the same thing I have repeated to you over and over again. You can go on deflecting now and playing the victim. Ridernyc (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Bad_wrtiting.2C_factual_inaccuracies.2C_and_nonsense.. You haven't participated in it, and seem to prefer attacking me to actually engaging with edit contents. You seem to have te Orwellian idea that starting a 6-section discussion on the edits, carefully setting them out in detail, as well as the reasoning behind them is the same as not being willing to discuss the proposal. And, I repeat, you are the only person involved in the edit war who has not participated in that discussion of the edits. 86.** IP (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLIT: Correction that should have been this edit[33] so as you can see I have talked on the talk page. I however will not freak out and start calling people liars. This is part of the problem some many ranting edits and corrections you can't even reply and god forbid you need to make a correction. Ridernyc (talk)

Comment: I haven't had the time to read through all of this yet, but I strongly suggest that these conversations be advertised to editors who write about fiction on relevant projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. I do write about fiction and have opinions about this, yet haven't seen a peep of it until it cropped up here. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and it's high time that WAF got an update and overhaul. 86 simply never announced, let alone discussed his changes beforehand. He just started editing, keeps reverting, and wikilawyers and IDHT in every discussion he's involved in, including this one. Once we got the current problem with 86 resolved (by getting him to enter reasonable discussion, or another way), we should definitely start a structured discussion about WAF, and involve all related WikiProjects. --87.79.213.106 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

.You mean the problem that I was inappropriately blocked after beginning discussion? 86.** IP (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for simpler editing

Ummmm "discussing changes beforehand"? What happened to WP:BRD? Pesky (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Let me catch my breath...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK...better. Seriously? _{Oh my side hurts now.....}--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! Laughter is so good for you ;P Pesky (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. If I didn't laugh...I'd cry. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So, is anything going to happen from this, or are we just going to let the problem carry on into the future? 86.** IP (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In my mind there's not an issue that you edited a page that badly needs an overhaul, but now that apparently objections exist, I'd strongly suggest bringing the discussion to the attention to the projects that are involved with writing plot summaries about fiction so as to get more involvement on the talk page. I haven't reviewed the edits and all the talk page proposals but once I have I'll make comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus and little support for the concept the block was inappropriate, so there's no reason to think anything in that regard will change. As far as the policy itself, as TK indicated above the talk page is the appropriate forum (perhaps aided with RFC, etc.) Continuing to assert the block was inappropriate will most likely have one of two outcomes: 1) no one will reply and the bot will eventually archive the thread, or 2) an editor will wrap the discussion in an archive tag. If 86 returns to behavior observes at 3rr (all caps, profanity, idht), another possibility might be another block. Nobody Ent 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Noone has even reviewed the block. Shall I take it to Arbcom? 86.** IP (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At least three admins -- the ones who declined the unblock request -- reviewed the block, and it's likely others have and have declined to comment. Your best bet for action here to go quiescent (unless someone asks you a direct question) and let it brew -- AN has a two day archive period which would at least get you into Monday which often gets more traffic. However, the probability you'll get any results you want is essentially zero. You can, of course, take it to ArbCom, but it's very unlikely they'll take the case and/or give you the result you want. The block is over and there is no justice here. You best path to Wiki-happiness is either to forget it or consider it an educational event in how WP dispute resolution works. Nobody Ent 22:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. Block was reviewed. Next block will be for continually wasting the community's time again and again. Someone needs to get the chip off of their shoulder, and move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Essay lying about content of guidelines

A small group of editors - one IP and User:Rossami - at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary seem determined to state false information about guidelines in an essay. In particular, they want to treat Wikiproject guidelines about the length of plot summaries as if said guidelines do not state that there's exceptions. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHow_to_write_a_plot_summary&diff=492363554&oldid=492278944

I don't think we should lie to people. Truth matters. Simple, factual corrections should not require one to attain consensus at a talk page where the only person opposing this particular change (I agree the other change could use more discussion, though I do think it's at least a questionable interpretation of policy, that should be reworded) is a constantly-changing IP, and noone else has even discussed it. 86.** IP (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here we go again. Ridernyc (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Wikiproject guidelines quoted unambiguously say what the change says they do, and not what the other text implies. Frankly, there seems to be an effort to rewrite policy and guideline through misquotation, in order to win arguments that were lost on the main policy/guideline pages, so, in this subject, guidelines lie about what policy say, essays lie about guidelines, and it all works out to a mess where the most hardline possible stance is stated as being based on much laxer actual consensus, by avoiding scrutiny on less-watched pages - then linking to them instead of what they quote. 86.** IP (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't care it's your lack of ability to work with others and your lack of ability to act civilly and assume good faith that is the issue. Ridernyc (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We're not a bureaucracy, we are descriptive and not prescriptive. The change you're making follows sentences that use "should" and "recommand", and NOT "require" or "must", so what you're trying to add seems to be adding nothing new. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I've just noticed that the things being quoted are Wikipedia guidelines - and thus, unlike this essay, have gained community consensus. Let's review:

      The Wikiproject guidelines quoted unambiguously say what the change says they do, and not what the other text implies. There cannot be even the slightest doubt about this:

      • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.
      • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels: Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient for a full-length work, very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more. Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries.

      The only one of these three that's at all ambiguous - but which also says that the length suggestion is only a rough guide, unlike the other two, is this one:

      • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words. Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots.

      So, two out of three guidelines explicitly say that, the third implies it.

    • Frankly, there seems to be an effort to rewrite policy and guideline through misquotation, in order to win arguments that were lost on the main policy/guideline pages, so, in this subject, guidelines lie about what policy say, essays lie about guidelines, and it all works out to a mess where the most hardline possible stance is stated as being based on much laxer actual consensus, by avoiding scrutiny on less-watched pages - then linking to them instead of what they quote. 86.** IP (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Here's something I've noticed: you use the word "lie" and derivatives far too much. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you care to actually engage with the factual evidence presented, instead of trying to dismiss it with Ad hominem attacks? 86.** IP (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • How about you show me once where I have used an ad hominem (it's Latin, you need to italicize it) attack. Then I'll be happy to show you how there's an edit history on every page of policy, guideline and essay, PLUS I'll be able show you how to tell if people are actually watchign said policy, guideline and essay pages (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is all of this drama relating to a footnote in an essay? A footnote, moreover, to a sentence that merely says There is no universal set length for a plot summary, though it should not be too excessively long. - which is hardly prescriptive, even when the footnote mentions "guidance" lengths from guidelines. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Essays are allowed considerable leeway to diverge from policy & guidelines in what they recommend. Both sides of this dispute have worthwhile opinions, and I don't think the disputed language is so clearly erroneous about the guideline as to immediate justify administrative intervention. We should close the discussion here and send it back to the essay talk page for regular WP:DR. Monty₈₄₅ 16:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• This editor has an agenda to "fix" every page dealing with fiction. Why they ran here instead of just using the talk page is beyond me. This has been going on for over a week at this point and this is the third or fourth time they have run to the notice boards for no reason. So no the drama is not just about this one revert. Ridernyc (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yup, if I'm counting correctly: 2 ANs, 1 ANI ... the word "liar" about 15 times. Bolded text about a dozen. General lack of clue - infinite. I am about to block for disruption across all of Wikipedia at this point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You've got my support for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Why not try a topic-ban or AN/ANI ban for awhile?--v/r - TP 19:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions on MMA articles

Originally I posted at ANI in an ancillary thread asking that general sanctions be imposed on all MMA related articles as well as a 500 edit minimum for editors to participate in MMA related AFDs (but not just to edit MMA pages). It was pointed out by The Blade of the Northern Lights that AN would be a better venue to ask for these sanctions.

I'm sure the majority of the admins here are familiar with the constant editwarring, SPAs, arguing, etc - the general battleground that now makes up MMA articles. We're dealing with new problems on a weekly basis at this point; this is the latest thread to pop up on the board, aside from the one I originally made my proposal in which ended with a boomerang indef for the OP.

We're dealing with some very passionate fans, some of whom have been off wiki canvassed (see the current ANI for some info on this), who don't quite understand the point of WP. Anyway, any arguments that need to be made for this are probably already well known by the community here, and those who need a refresher can check the current ANI to get a taste of how this has been going.

For those who may not be familiar with this, the reason I'm proposing a 500 edit minimum is that MMA AFDs have attracted tons of SPAs.

I think both of these provisions will better allow admins to deal with the situation, or to quote The Blade of the Northern Lights: "If you think it'd help, you can ask to impose standard community sanctions at AN. That's what we did for Indian caste articles, and from an administrative standpoint it's made the problem about 10x easier to deal with." Though I'm sure I don't need to sell you on making your job easier :).

Note: Insofar as I know I am completely uninvolved with MMA aside from removing a delrev tag from an MMA page after the review ended.

SÆdon^talk 05:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very clearly an involved editor in this situation, so I won't comment on what sanctions should or should not be put into place. As I have stated before I am willing to accept whatever sanctions Admins or the Wikipedia community at-large decides, on me individually or as part of a group of editors. However, I do have a question as this process potentially proceeds. WP:GS seems to be broad in terms of what "sanctions" are and/or could be (and reviewing the sanctions log it seems that any and everything is on the table). I realize this may be intentional, but even with my years of experience around Wikipedia I'm not totally sure what this action could result in. Can I safely assume that if sanctions are put into place, the terms of those sanctions will be clear to both established editors (like me) and those new to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (like those coming in from the MMA forums)? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just use the Obama sanctions text since it's quite specific:

Exact wording:MMA related-pages (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing MMA pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedon (talk • contribs)

Heh... fair enough. I was just wanting to be sure that if sanctions are applied by the time this AN is closed that those sanctions are clear. What you basically seem to be proposing is that a user gets one warning, if that much, before the ban hammer comes down, even if just temporarily. I have no problems with that. I just wanted to sure I know what's going on. I supposed the possible sanctions could have included topic bans for all involved editors, including myself, which is why I wanted to be sure the sanctions were clear by the time this AN closed. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think sanctions could be a good idea, as long as we take care to design smart sanctions. Be clear about what the problem is and how the sanctions aim solve it - this is especially important if there's a chance that somebody could get blocked for defying the terms of the sanctions. In particular, I think a time limit would be appropriate. (If when the sanctions end the editing is reasonable, we all win. If not, just click on "renew sanctions" or find a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I have no particular interest in MMA but I've probably made a few edits to MMA articles over the years)

That's a disambiguation page. Do you mean SMART criteria? Nyttend (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I am an idiot and I forgot to copy & paste the right target for that link. I've updated the link; thanks for pointing it out. bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion as to sanctions in general, but would just say that 500 edit limit can be easily overcome by a person of average intelligence using a Perl or other script that any novice could write. I could do it in less than a day with just the mouse and keyboard, and I'm not extraordinarily clever. This would leave us with 500 minor edits of dubious value, and an SPA that doesn't look like an SPA on paper. If you underestimate the determination of others, you do so at your own peril. Whatever the community decides is fine with me, but there would have to be a time elements as well (or similar test), or you are just creating more problems. To be sure, there is no silver bullet here. When dealing with problem makers, you have to think like a problem maker if you want avoid the sanctions being easily bypassed. Additionally: I would remind you all that WP:MMANOT is an essay, it is not a guideline, which is part of the problem. As an essay, it has no teeth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if a SPA goes to the effort of making 500 scripted/minor edits (which they'll probably get caught on some sort of automation/WTH is this user doing trigger) they'll still look like a SPA. If the SPA goes through the investment of 500 meaningful edits and then immediately changes to a entirely different style where they start exhibiting MMA-SPA behavior, it'll be obious they're a SPA. They'll reason the same way, make the same types of arguments, etc. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The regular sanctioning processes are not working or Administrators are declining to enforce the current community behavorial guidelines. While I appreciate the additional tool in the toolbox, it doesn't help if the repair man is not doing anything with the tools that are already in the toolbox. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mostly right, but there's a chance that a big dialog on a page, or a warning on given to a user that's got the dire language usually in these general sanctions might, might cause a problematic user to adjust their techniques. For most of these SPA's, it won't do much though. Someone will stir them up off-site and we'll get new accounts and IP's that frankly don't care about basic things like courtesy, respect and polite disagreement. And getting block? That's just a badge of honor to take back to their home site! Ravensfire (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

500 edits may be relatively easy for somebody competent at automation (or somebody who has an entire day spare) who already has some knowledge of what kind of edits / which locations permit rapid increases in edit count. These are not as obvious to outsiders as they are to old hands here; I'll keep quiet on specific examples. However, most potentially problematic single-issue editors are unlikely to fit that description. Even if 20% manage to jump over the hurdle, meh, we've reduced the number by 80% and that's a big improvement as far as I'm concerned. bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A 500-edit restriction is not that easy to game. There is such a restriction on a particular article in WP:ARBAA2. Two editors received an indef block for a silly process of editing one word at a time to reach 500. The edits they tried to do were revision-deleted as being obvious abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think sanctions are quite necessary yet. Sanctions against users with less than 500 edits can be (reasonably) viewed as an attempt to exclude everyone except "wiki-insiders" from the discussion. It says to everyone outside of Wikipedia, "your opinion isn't important." Just because there are some SPA's ganging up on AfD's is not a reason to ban them from joining the discussion, and it doesn't necessarily mean that we should ignore their input. A better use of our time would be to educate them about our policies. Eventually, they'll either get bored or exasperated, decide there is nothing they can do to stop the destruction of their favorite articles, and leave; or, they'll dig in, read the relevant policies, and start arguing their points from a policy-based standpoint (which would be a good thing). Admins who close AfD's regularly can spot SPA's a mile away, you needn't worry about them changing the course of an article's fate by posting arguments that are not based on policy. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sanctions have been necessary for some time. Several editors have spent significant amounts of time explaining the rules/policies. And it has changed from outright claims of WP:ILIKEIT to filibustering and screaming that they're being ignored if you don't answer every single one of their posts. It's not just AfDs, some have moved on to the talk pages where it is appropriate to discuss the inclusion of MMA based articles and completely derailed the consensus building (posting long diatribes, using formal logic processes instead of WP policy, posting proposals counter to the entire purpose of the consensus building). It's not that we need a new tool in the box, just some technicians that are not afraid to use the tools already in the box. Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If you can't beat em, join em. Break the discussion down into bite-sized pieces, and create separate threads to decide each small chunk. Note that any off-topic discussion in a topic will be removed. Get a consensus on each individual chunk, then put them all together. They can only derail a discussion if the discussion is unfocused enough to allow it. If there are editors out there who are obviously intend to disrupt the debate instead of contribute to it, then they need to be blocked. But, new editors who don't fully understand policy may not necessarily be intentionally disrupting the debate. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 01:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Scottywong, there are other responses from SPAs and new editors who get frustrated with the process you didn't include. Hasteur includes one of them, the filibustering with WP:TLDR comments that run discussions in circles, never bringing up any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, which basically torpedoes any constructive attempt at resolving the issue (which is happening now at the supposed MMA event notability guideline RfC). The other response ranges from out-right vandalism to talk page haranguing about how bad the alternative is without providing anything constructive in return (see Talk:2012 in UFC events) to harassment and personal attacks (both on and off-wiki) of those who are trying to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There was even push-back a couple months ago when I was trying to add actual prose to articles so that they wouldn't contain simple WP:ROUTINE sports coverage. Other than a few cases, it hasn't been any one user/IP causing the havoc, so it isn't as if I could file a report at WP:AIV as warnings stack up. The issues have been taken to WP:ANI numerous times and essentially gets blown off. The result is some of us who were active in the MMA article space leave because, quite frankly, we're tired of the BS. I've moved to working on the backlog at WP:CCI for now. Some other editors are also finding other things to do, yet some simply leave on their own accord and haven't been seen from since. I would potentially like to go back to the MMA article space to add content to those articles which do cover notable topics and clean-up, yes delete, those articles which are not notable. But I'm not going to do it if it's going to cause me to be harassed and attacked further. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If you want to pursue sanctions, Arbcom is probably your best bet. Otherwise, I'd say you need more editors to outnumber the SPA's. Your best bet there might be to stage a well-organized RfC that is advertised at WP:CENT. If you go this route, be sure to define your proposal in a crystal clear way with no room for misinterpretation. I imagine the proposal would be to decide the fate of the individual vs. omnibus debate, as well as secondary notability guidelines for MMA events. Once it's decided at RfC, then there are no more arguments to endure, and it will give the SPA's a sense of closure on the issue (rather than forcing them to stop participating in the discussion, which will only anger them and encourage more disruption). I'd be happy to review a draft RfC before it goes live, just hit me up. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 04:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You mean the like RfC here that was advertised at WT:CENT here and already appears to be a dog chasing its tail? Okay. Maybe should should continue to hanging out at WP:CCI --TreyGeek (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok, well just wait for the RfC to finish before you get your panties in a bunch. ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Also, it was not listed at WP:CENT. I have added it there now. Wait a few days and you should get more involvement from experienced Wikipedians. Be patient. The more you respond to every comment the SPA's make, the longer and more TLDR you make the discussion. Let them make their non-policy-based arguments, and don't respond to them. They will be ignored by the closing admin, just like they were on many recent AfD's. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose restrictions based on edit count, it goes against the anyone can edit ideals of Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 01:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose' also to any sanctions based on edit count. The principles involved are that anybody can edit, and AGF, two of the most basic ideas here. I strongly oppose individual event MMA articles unless we change all of sports similarly, but I would much rather lose this argument than lose the principles of Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose restricting AfD based on edit count particularly such a high count, and also on such a limited set of articles. Shadowjams (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per DGG. The problem is a select few individuals, and some socks, who have escaped blocks solely because most admins do not want to wade into the muck. This is one reason I have exited the discussions there, as I can't take action because of my previous attempts to create order there makes me too "involved" in the eyes of my peers, and my inability to get fellow admins to help when blocking was needed. Let's face it, virtually no admin wants to get involved in the MMA disputes, and almost every ANI discussion is all but ignored by admins and dies a long, slow, verbose death with no action. We ignored the real problems long enough, and that hasn't worked out very well. Why we are allowing editors involved in MMA greater latitude in personal attacks and disruption is beyond me, but we have created our own problem by trying to ignore problem editors because it was "controversial" or a lot of work to slog through the reams of circular conversations. What is needed isn't more rules, it is strong enforcement of our current guidelines for conduct and existing inclusion criteria, and holding this "community" to the same standards that we expect of anyone else. I spent months trying to compromise already, it is time to simply treat MMA like any other article type on Wikipedia, no matter how upset it makes a few fans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 06:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • With respect to the above editors who have opposed, while I can understand why we should oppose a ban on editors based on their edit count, I don't see why we should not at least offer a view on (if not support) the proposal that this area be subject to general probation. It seems remarkably unhelpful to offer a strong view on one part of a proposal, and stay silent as to the rest of it. Is it not possible that admins have waded through even parts of this area, but found that after consuming so much of their time, the conduct did not warrant something so entirely preventative as a block? With probation, at least other measures are available to uninvolved admins to address the types of disruption allegedly found on these articles...if you care enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I did offer a solution. Blocking disruptive editors and refusing the articles to have an exemption from policy is simply holding both to the same standard we expect in every other project area at Wikipedia. Few admins have braved the "toxic cesspool" to enforce behavioral guidelines, and this lack of enforcement emboldens the offenders and feeds the continued incivility and disruption. The real problem is that we have been entirely too generous in the past, and no solution will be effective until the MMA project is held to the same standard as every other project. No less, no more. It isn't easy, just necessary. On the other hand, general sanctions will affect all editors, limiting good faith participation and creating too much collateral damage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • If by your own submissions, an insufficient number of admins are willing to follow through with that solution you offered, it would seem there is a choice between the lesser of two evils - is the way things are done currently more satisfactory than if probation is in place? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes. Sanctions that are not properly enforced are worse than no sanctions, as it provides the opportunity to selectively enforce them. At a different level, this is no different than a government passing laws that can't be properly enforced, only to selectively enforce them when it suits them (ie: tyranny). This would be asking for abuse and could not serve a higher purpose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question Is there any precedent for imposing a minimum edit requirement on an article, or on a topic broadly construed? If so, can someone point me to some examples? If not, is this proposal even technically feasible? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Log_of_article-level_sanctions for an example of such a restriction. There was a recent ANI case regarding an editor gaming. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that sanction is imposing a "minimum edit requirement" and clearly a proper "minimum edit requirement" to contribute to article X, beyond the semiprotection, is against Wikipedia's spirit and purpose. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for GoldenGlory84

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.

---

• GoldenGlory84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is quite enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a whole lotta socks in that drawer. Based on this alone, I'd support a community ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I can't imagine any extenuating circumstances that would excuse this much socking. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Get him out of here. Talk about a fall from glory. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support but I'm waiting for the "what, y r we wasting tiem juzt de facto bannnifiez, doodZ!" crowd to show up. Night Ranger (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - we're better off without this. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Doubt it will change much, but needs to happen. Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but per Shadowjams. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question of procedure As the subject of this proposal is currently blocked, who is appointed to speak for them? CrawlBacker (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This has almost gotten to the point of WP:LTA. No need for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • In all likelihood, most of the subjects of this proposal are currently blocked, but I'd guess that there are a few random socks floating around that could comment if they felt like it. There's no policy-based requirement for a devil's advocate. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No need to respond, CrawlBacker is now blocked as a sock. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of GoldenGlory84 is tagged as a subcategory of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis. Has it been confirmed that GoldenGlory84 is indeed JarlaxleArtemis? If so, there's no need for a community ban, because JarlaxleArtemis is already under a community ban since 2005. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • While the behavior is somewhat similar, a CheckUser at a recent SPI said the two are not the same. Probably a JA-wannabe.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruption and POV push by user DIREKTOR

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reported user: DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Serbo-Croatian is South Slavic language with multiple standards. It exist in several recognised forms, all of those are official languages in several counties: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin (without individual ISO code and recognised by International Organization for Standardization as form of Serbian) and Serbian, while Standard Serbo-Croatian is now defunct, and not in official use anywhere. User DIREKTOR is removing official national languages, and replace them only by defunct Serbo-Croatian, without anyone's agreement on related talk pages. On Mayor of Split, DIREKTOR added sh (Serbo-croatian) replacing hr and was reverted two times, by two different editors. Serbocroatian does not exist reverting nationalist edit by Direktor. Anyway, he reverted third time, without any talk page contribution. On House of Flowers (mausoleum), DIREKTOR added sh, also without anyones agreement. I started talkpage section about it, and reverted, as Serbian and Croatian version are different, as you may see: Serbian: Кућа цвећа/Kuća cveća Croatian: Kuća cvijeća and per fact that in Belgrade, Serbia, where this mausoleum is, official language is Serbian. DIRECTOR proclaimed his newly established version as status quo ante, and as i know his edit warring history, i agreed on his pushing, and just added local version on language, while leaving sh in place, when DIREKTOR reverted again, with rude comment "Nonsense" None dispute the fact that Serbo-Croatian do exist, as parental language, but that one is not in official use for decades! All of those languages have separate wikipedias, different ISO codes, and therefor users MUST have ability to agree upon usage. Why we must remove them? Are they problematic? No, they dont! User DIREKTOR have vast history of edit warring, and this WP:OWNership over articles must stop. User cannot just revert each time to his version, as that is only WP:RIGHT VERSION. I am asking for punishment for user DIREKTOR, as that i engaged into edit war, DIREKTOR would probably follow me as much as needed, as he did before. Maybe 1RR on this user would bring much needed peace, as that is better then to protect all related pages, as admins did in the past few week. Or some very useful administrators help, as i dont want to edit this article anymore, with such unpleasant user prepared for WP:BATTLE to protect his POV. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 1) This is about a content dispute, 2) it would be in the wrong place even if it weren't, 3) none of above accusations are accurate, and are overblown, wild claims posted so as to win said content dispute. I am not on some campaign to the various standards with the language itself (though that would perfectly logical), I am merely doing so from time to time (on two marginal articles this time) where the alternative is to have FOUR identical translations of the same language - instead of one (not counting other languages). I won't go into details re the content dispute, but in short, WhiteWriter joins us from Serbia and would like to see both "Serbian" and "Serbo-Croatian" listed in the lead. The problem there is 1) that they're the same language, and 2) that both translations of the name are identical (which one would expect from translations in the same language). And I stand by my statement that it is (quote) "nonsense" to list the same translation of the same language twice in the lead, for the sake of seeing the adjective "Serbian" in bright blue letters out in front. -- Director (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Please, dont be deceived by this false statement, and see for yourself. I will not comment this, typical by him, ethnic profiling of editors. It was content dispute, long time ago, but now, after all that happened, on numerous articles, it is by far more. DIREKTOR ignored consensus on that page with user:Evlekis, and pushed his own attitude. All of the statement are true, and they are quotations, as you may see. Please, see very carefully user DIREKTOR's edits and history. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC) This isn't the appropriate noticeboard for such disputes. That being said baseless labeling of other users' arguments as false etc. or asking about their punishment isn't the way to get ahead in content disputes.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute, not something suited for this board. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Richard Daft

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

---

Moved from WP:ANI

 – Nobody Ent 12:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Richard Daft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on May 2012. He repeatedly evades his indefinite block by hopping on to IP Addresses, and uses them to make legal threats and persistently hurls uncivil conduct to further a single purpose. He has used 7 accounts to evade this block since 2008. Having said that, this Sockpuppet Archive clearly demonstrates that knowing that adopting new personas will get blocked, and so he uses IP's to avoid scrutiny. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

...and the diffs of the evasion, attacks, etc? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the behavior of the IP's and account's he's used demonstrate the operator's behaviour of Richard Daft, but since you've ask for some diffs, here's some [IP Daft used to personally attack BlackJack], [[34]], [[35]], [[36]], and [[37]]. All evidence of pure trolling and disruption to Lady Wikipedia. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, are you there? Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Patience :) It had only been five minutes. People need to take time to read diffs, think, etc. Not everybody (I hope) is constantly refreshing ANI... Anyway, I'm inclined to support this community ban, but are we certain that this IP hopper is Richard Daft? The context of the diffs isn't completely clear. Kansan (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Because I am the nominator of this ban. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   10:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The laundry list of socks and IPs at SPI is enough to convince me regardless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order - Don't ban proposals belong on AN, not ANI? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question of procedure As the subject of this proposal is currently blocked, who is appointed to speak for them? CrawlBacker (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Traditionally a talk page stalker would copy/paste their comments from their talk page. Nobody Ent 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No action is necessary, the editor is defacto banned (indef'd since 2008) Nobody Ent 22:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - If ongoing work is needed to keep up with his socks and revert their edits, it simplifies the work of whoever does that if there is a formal ban.

Daft's SPI report already has 21 sections. Should Daft ever change his mind and want to return to normal editing, his talk page is open for an unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - (Don't really understand the distinction but that's not important right now.) Nobody Ent 13:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - better late than never I suppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Already de facto banned, don't really see what the point of this is seeing as all his edits are distinctive and reverted on sight. Support I guess, but I don't see how this will change anything. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Even though he's defacto banned as Jenks points out, using IPs to evade the block just keeps the cards stacked against him. He has clearly outlived his usefulness to the community. GONE. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - IP socks by a disruptive user is definitely not allowed and Richard Daft has failed the community for the last time. Clearly, this user is incompetent to edit Wikipedia with his socks while blocked. With that said, this user should be banned outright. Enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Has caused considerable disruption within the cricket WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Query about a serial sockpuppeter

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

---

What is the status of the user known variously as User:Davenbelle, User:Moby Dick, User:Jack Merridew, User:Diyarbakir and User:Gold Hat, among others?

• Arbcom banned this user from certain articles in 2005 [38]
• Arbcom found in 2005 that this user was hounding User:Cool cat [39]
• Arbcom found In 2006 that this user was socking as User:Moby Dick to hound User:Cool cat and another user [40]
• In 2008 this user was given yet another chance [41]
• This led to Arbcom unbanning this user in late 2008, with restrictions [42]
• In late 2009, most restrictions were removed, except the user remained restricted to editing from a single account [43]
• On 24 April 2011, this user withdrew his arbitration agreement [44]
• I proposed a community ban in May 2011 [45]
• In May 2011, this user edited from User:Battle of Masada, User:White-bellied Sea Eagle, and User:Paperbark Flycatcher that we know of.
• On 4 June 2011, Arbcom passed a motion restricting this user to the account User:Barong [46]
• Since then, this user has used the following sock accounts that we know of:
  • User:Waterbuck - June 15-23, 2011
  • User:Nantucket sleighride - June 17, 2011
  • User:Il fugitivo - June 18-21, 2011
  • User:1942_Porsche - June 20, 2011
  • User:Czolgosz - June 22, 2011
  • User:The Inheritance of Loss - June 24, 2011
  • User:Puputan - June 23-25 2011
  • User:Nyupat - June 23-25, 2011
  • User:Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard - June 25, 2011
  • User:Stone Town - June 25-26, 2011
  • User:Victoria and Albert - August 2011, March 2012
  • User:Sitti Noerbaja - August 2011
  • User:Portuguese Man o' War - September to October 2011
  • User:One Ton Depot - October to November 2011
  • User:Blue-bottle - November 2011
  • User:Alarbus - November 2011 to March 2012
  • User:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 - January to March 2012
  • User:The Call of the Wild - August to November 2011, March 2012
  • User:Uncontroversial Obscurity - July 2011 and April 2012 (not currently blocked?)

This user has seven years of problem editing behaviour. Is this user community banned? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I asked Amalthea about user:Uncontroversial Obscurity back in April. She pointed me to this, which says that the arbitration committee has allowed him to edit (only) from that account. Raul654 (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Amalthea is male. AGK [•] 01:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think this user is community banned. I haven't seen any evidence that there's been actually disruptive behaviour from this user since about 2008 so I'm not sure what sanctions are accomplishing right now. Reyk _YO! 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Repeatedly socking is not disruptive enough? Interesting. There are other issues. If the user is not banned yet, then I propose a formal community ban. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban- Nominator appears motivated by a personal vendetta (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive632#Gimmetoo.2C_again), and therefore should not be the one to instigate a ban proposal. There has been no allegation of misbehaviour for about 5 years (I don't regard editing non-disruptively with several accounts as disruptive, unless this is in defiance of an existing ban which does not appear to be the case here). There's certainly no urgent situation that needs dealing with because the most recent account has not been used for over a month. Reyk _YO! 01:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There has been no allegation of misbehaviour for about 5 years - Wrong. There were lots of concerns about his behavior at Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership and the discussion leading up to it. And that happened all of three months ago.
  • because the most recent account has not been used for over a month. - or, far more likely, we haven't yet caught his latest sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Reading over that 2012 RfC, I'm afraid I'm not seeing the misbehaviour. I see some robust conversation but nothing I see as worrying. The only thing I even see him accused of is changing the direction of a conversation and I see nothing ban-worthy in that. Can you clarify? Reyk _YO! 02:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It's complicated because the actions were spread over three months and half-a-dozen now-huge discussions. But the long and short of it is that Alarbus, in conjuction with Wehwalt, Pumpkinsky, and TCO, spent months and months running a guerrilla campaign to get rid of me and install Wehwalt as the new featured article director. When a legitimate discussion about ways to improve FAC came up, they (Alarbus et al) hijacked it, and pushed it into an RFC on the position of FA director that they (but nobody else) wanted. The result - after three months and many megabytes of discussion - was an RFC that came out extremely lopsidedly (90%+) in favor of keeping me. The actual problems that came up in the original discussion got pushed aside, and everyone was so exhausted that they have only recently been getting useful attention.
      • Meanwhile, after their RFC blew up in their faces, Alarbus began floating the idea that FA status could be arbitrarily awarded by anyone. You can imagine how we felt after it was all over and learned that the entire episode had been orchestrated by several users who were returning sockpuppets. I suggest you drop a message on Sandy Georgia's talk page because she can fill you in on more of the details. Raul654 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification. I can see how that would be extremely annoying for you, and I can definitely understand that derailing productive discussions to agitate for some other unrelated change can be disruptive if that gets in the way of useful work. On the other hand I'm not a fan of banning people for having unpopular views and sticking to them stubbornly, and I do not agree that having off-the-wall opinions on how FA should be run and believing someone else could do a better job amounts to harassment. I think you have legitimate reasons to feel annoyed but I still disagree with you. Reyk _YO! 03:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question: Gimmetoo, what led you to bring this up at this particular time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm curious about that too. There's not going to be consensus for anything, we'll have drama and finger pointing until someone mercifully closes the thread. Is this really necessary?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Seven years of harassing others is enough. Raul654 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Raul, I do not see a proposal to ban this individual, nor terms for a prospective siteban. Moreover, I am not sure it is even possible to make an additional (community) ban while arbitration sanctions remain in place. AGK [•] 01:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's nonsense. People get community banned while under arbitration committee sanction all the time. An arbitration committee sanction is not a license to edit. Or, to put it in slightly different terms, just because the arbitration committee limited him to one account does not prevent the community from deciding it's had enough of his misbehavior. Raul654 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that I don't see why we are continuing to allow this editor to edit. I would be willing to look the other way if this was one or maybe even 2 alt accounts used sporadically to edit different topics.Or something!. But there are like 20 that we know of. Probably more. I think I am a pretty easy going and forgiving sort and even I think this is too much. Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• What I meant was that ArbCom made the decision last May to not site-ban. As a community, we should therefore have a very solid basis for overruling that decision. (Having made a statement in last year's sanction appeal, I am recused as an arb with respect to Merridew, so this is a comment as a 'regular' editor.) AGK [•] 13:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• If I were commenting only based on the merits of this issue, I'd oppose it for now, as I still hold out some small hope that Jack and Wikipedia can work out their differences. But I think this meta-issue is more important: Gimmetoo says on his talk page it is just a coincidence that he raises this here while he is currently engaged in a dispute with some editors, some of whom could be described as Jack's "allies". However, that strains credulity. I believe this AN thread was started in an attempt to further a factional conflict. So a more important question, to me, is: Should starting a community ban discussion for an editor who, as far as I know, hasn't edited in over a month, to hurt the other side in a current factional dispute, be encouraged or discouraged? My answer is "discouraged". Oppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see how this thread is a productive effort and would oppose a ban pursuant to this narrow discussion about an inactive user. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know what happened to Jack. He edited very constructively with his Jack Merridew account for like a year and a half without incident. He was held up as one of the examples of someone coming back from siteban to become a highly constructive editor. Then there was some kind of drama (I don't know what) and he "scuttled" his JM account. Then some socks, then the whole Barong thing. Then someone at Meta globally locked all of his accounts. I wish someone would explain what the hell happened because none of this just created itself, chickens and eggs and all that. Night Ranger (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • From what I gather, it started when JM asked ArbCom whether or not his old editing restrictions were still in force. They told him a lot of crap, held it against him when he acted on it, and then acted surprised when he went ballistic. An oversimplification, but that's about the gist of it. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • That makes sense to me, replacing crap with lost focus. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Who's to say he's inactive? It looks far more likely to me that we simply haven't caught his latest sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• From what I saw a few months ago he regularly stalked and harassed Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs) for months...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merridew never tried to hide his sock puppets, and plastered "alternative account" notices over them all. He also writes peculiarly, is predisposed to certain topics, and has a unique style of userpage. More to the point, Raul, is there any history between you and this bloke that you care to acknowledge? I recall you and Merridew did not get along. AGK [•] 13:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, you're wrong on both counts. He had no notice on his Victoria and Albert, Sitti Noerbaja, Alarbus, Blue-bottle, One Ton Depot, Portuguese Man o' War accounts. He didn't admit any of that until *after* he was caught with checkuser. And as for prior interactions, you have me confused with someone else. I don't remember having any significant interaction with him when he was editing as Jack Merridrew or Davenbelle. (I think I was an inactive arbitrator during the Coolcat/Davenbelle case) His Alarbus sockpuppet, on the other hand, I did have the distinct displeasure of encountering, and I've already described it earlier in this thread. Raul654 (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

* When did the Victoria and Albert, Sitti Noerbaja, Alarbus, Blue-bottle, One Ton Depot, Portuguese Man o' War, et al. accounts have "alternative account" notices, AGK? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• AGK has good questions, but from the tone here, wouldn't this really belong at WP:SPI, because to the best of my knowledge we don't ban inactive users on the assumption they are socking unless we have evidence to support the assumption, or at WP:RFAR, because the only intact sanction to review or alter is the Arbcom-based account limitation? MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree - as Alarbus he attempted to stay well hidden - even after a sock investigation - when a few of Alarbus's alter egos were uncovered he kept his JM identity hidden...Modernist (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one has answered Floquenbeam's question, allow me to. This is being brought here because of this ludicrous discussion. Gimmetoo (the initiator of this AN thread), prefers the use of a certain date format for references in that article. Some other editors, including some friends of Jack Merridew (the subject of this thread), prefer a different date format, and have voiced support for changing the date format on the talk page. Naturally, megabytes of discussion have been generated about this, with name-calling, accusations and drama spilling over onto half a dozen user talk pages I watch. So yes, this is basically an offshoot of a dispute over whether the article about the artist formerly known as P. Diddy uses reference access dates in the May 15, 2012 format or the 2012-05-15 format. And this being Wikipedia, where such things are taken very, very seriously, a ban proposal was all but inevitable. 28bytes (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Your assumption of good faith is staggering. When do you propose to discuss a user with a 7-year history of socking and hounding? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd say his summary is pretty spot on. If this was such a concern, why had you not brought it up prior to your dispute? Do you deny that the dispute 28bytes is highlighting contributed to your concern about this user? I've got no opinion one way or another, but don't bullshit us by throwing WP:AGF around and expect us to ignore the blatant and obvious truth.--v/r - TP 13:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I did bring this up prior to anyone with a known association to Merridew being involved in that dispute. That a number of editors with Merridew connections then suddenly got involved seems a bit of a curious coincidence, don't you think? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Excellent job avoiding the question. The question was "why had you not brought it up prior to your dispute?" Why did you not bring this up before the dispute at Talk:Sean_Combs#Date_format_change_proposal? I'm not talking about a year ago, I'm saying why was this not brought up a month ago or three months ago. Is this particular reincarnation of this topic here at AN today triggered by the dispute? Do you deny that the dispute at Talk:Sean_Combs#Date_format_change_proposal sparked this thread? I asked nothing about anyone with known associations to Merridew being involved in the dispute. I asked if the dispute itself sparked this thread. That is the question I'd like answered. That is what 28bytes has said. It doesn't take anyone with 1 less braincell than a chicken to figure out the truth and I don't appreciate being treated like I'm stupid. The obvious truth is obvious and no amount of waving WP:AGF is going to change my mind about the motivation here. Now, I don't really have an opinion on the guy, I know nothing. You and Raul actually make a pretty convincing argument and I don't know why Arbcom has continued to give this guy leave. But trying to play stupid with me isn't going to sway me to support your opinion. Is 28bytes right?--v/r - TP 15:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
          • • Well of course there is a connection; however, I resent 28's implication. I brought up Merridew about 2 weeks ago, when I became aware of his recent socking activities, and that editors were proxy-editing for him. Then a number of editors with Merridew connections suddenly got involved in a dispute they had not been involved in. What does that suggest to you? It suggest to me that Merridew is active and that his status is a current issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it staggering that Rich Farmborough is hours from getting disopped and site banned for making too many edits too fast and we are here discussing how and why we shouldn't be site banning someone with this behavior. As someone who has been in this users place and created an alternate account for a few days in an effort to start fresh, before realizing it was nearly impossible to do so and recovering my old account, having this number of alternate accounts is simply unacceptable. There are valid reasons for having alt accounts but I find it difficult to assume good faith with someone who has this number. I personally have no problem with this user remaining and editing and I don't even have a problem with lifting the Arbcom determinations if consensus allows that and overrules them. I do think that at the very least this user needs to abandon these extra accounts and pick one or 2 to use. With that said, I also don't have much faith in the Checkuser application and am more than willing to accept that some of these are not this users accounts. Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away here, nobody is banning Rich Farmbrough. The ban motions were roundly defeated, as they should have been. 28bytes (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My involvement on the Sean Combs page started when I saw Malleus participating in this discussion on John's talk page. I got involved when I saw Gimmetoo had changed the Manual of Style to agree with his position in his argument with John. Malleus has since found copyright violations and GFHandel has found that a lot of the urls need updating as they don't point at the supporting material any more. It was within the hour after I posted this comment in support of citation templates for the article that Gimmetoo opened this thread. I have trouble believing that the timing of this thread is a coincidence. FWIW I am a long-time supporter of "Jack" and think that he is a valuable asset to the site, and should be able to edit on Wikipedia without restriction. -- Dianna 21:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Despite the implication made here that anyone who opposes Gimmetoo's view on date formatting is a supporter of Jack Merridew, and therefore presumably a bad person, I stumbled across the Sean Combs article via a posting I saw on John's talk page. I'm neither a supporter nor a detractor of Jack Merridew, as I don't know enough about that account's history to have an opinion, and I was certainly not a party to the efforts to replace Raul as FAC director. I do share the view that's been expressed here about the suspicious timing of this call for action against Jack Merridew. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed

An arbitration case regarding Rich Farmbrough has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.
2. Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.
3. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 19:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requested edit to protected template to implement RFC

 Done Template_talk:Cleanup#Edit_request_--_change_text_when_there.27s_no_cleanup_reason Bulwersator (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 20:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Structuration GA problems

Structuration was passed as GA recently, and sent to GAR. The reviewer at GAR (Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Structuration/1) said, "The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed." A copy edit was requested immediately afterward, which brought up a lot of issues (see Talk:Structuration#Copyedit).

The promotion to GAN seems extremely problematic and out of process. Since process was so egreigously bypassed here, could this not be "speedy delisted" without having to sit in the GAR queue? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This would probably be better brought up at WT:GAN, as you don't need to be an admin to delist an article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User mass-removing categories.

Please investigate Niemti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing categories from redirects in what seems to me like an arbitrary manner and in contravention of WP:CATREDIRECT. Either way, his actions have proven controversial on his talk, but he doesn't seem to be stopping and has incorrectly characterized these redirects as "spam." I have no doubt that his edits are attempts to be constructive, but I think that they're a serious detriment and he has hundreds of edits that will likely have to be reverted in a systematic fashion so it might be wise for users to coordinate an effort to discuss (and likely revert) this spate of edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC) user notified and user template changed to have more links.—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from this and several other threads on Niemti's talk page, this user does seem to have trouble grasping the concept of collaboration. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't really care anymore. I thought I was doing a good job, turns out people don't think so. If you really want, just revert them, that's all. --Niemti (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

AIV

There is a backlog at AIV. Administrative attention needed there. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Jonathan Yip - input requested

C16sh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - the contributions of this user are very similar to those of indef'd user Jonathan Yip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his socks, both in style and scope. More specifically, both have targeted articles regarding transportation in major metropolitan areas. Each user has edited those areas' airport articles, and each user has a history of tinkering with road articles' infoboxes and junction lists. What really caught my eye was this edit to Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel - an edit identical to one made by Jonathan Yip three different times. Has this reached WP:DUCK status, or am I seeing a connection that doesn't exist? – TMF (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Yip is 2Pac, as C16sh would be The Notorious B.I.G.. In other words, these are two different coasts with these two users. --MuZemike 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if these two users are not the same, why would one continue to be allowed to edit in ways that led the other to be blocked? – TMF (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for the Reference Desk Troll

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 German Reference Desk Troll, whose current incarnation is 84.61.181.19, was recently blocked for disruptive editing. It returned from its block today and happily resumed trolling (the reference desk question is about an obscure German forum post; the troll knows the answer, and it's not the redirect target it proposed). John Carter pointed out that the troll apparently is not community banned. I propose we rectify that. Huon (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. I support a community ban, just to make it more expedient to deal with them. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Obvious support is obvious. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Pro forma support Nobody Ent 14:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Yes please.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support for obvious reasons. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Support on principal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support to make it easier to prevent future reappearances. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support while I think this user is already defacto banned, as other have said making it a formal community ban ensure it's easy to deal with Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
11. And a cluebat-shaped trout for anyone daft enough to think this is a user education / mentoring issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
12. I would support regarding the user behind this, but how would this change the way admins handle any IP addresses used by this user? Gimmetoo (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

    At present this editor tends to have been given more leeway. I didn't even realise there was an LTA page for it until now. A clear sign that edits matching this pattern can be reverted on sight and without controversy will be a positive development. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• I need human test subjects for {{The Donut of DOOM}}, it's still under development. Penyulap ☏ 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No longer oppose, I found one. Still looking for anti-troll strategy test subjects though, and that would be a support. Penyulap ☏ 16:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose but I can be talked out of it - and can we ask something of this user? - There are two problems with his queries. Firstly, a consdierable number are strange. Secondly, many of them appear to be designed to "get users to dance". I want to point out now that I have a huge amount of experience with a huge variety of folk with Asperger's (I can explain how to trusted folk off-wiki) and it seems to me that his (and let's assume he's a he) contributions seem very much consistent with something on the autistic spectrum, especially Asperger's. If I am correct in this supposition, then the first reason partially disassembles, while the second one completely collapses. Firstly, we can't penalize someone with a disability for peculiar questioning. Secondly, we can't think he is trying to get users to dance if I am right about his condition - it's just complete cluenessness. However I am not a medical practitioner myself (if I was I probably wouldn't be trying to diagnose people over the internet!). My job involves clicking a computer screen all day and trying to line some numbers up with other numbers, such that I get a green rather than red number at the end. So perhaps it may be prudent to ask this user, if it's possible to get in touch with him, whether he has a medical diagnosis? Egg Centric 00:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether the troll has mental issues, and frankly I don't care. It makes no difference whatsoever to the disruption caused. I do not propose penalizing someone for having mental issues, but for asking questions to which he knows the answers before he asks, for boldly lying in redirect requests, for trying to confound users by asking for uncreatable redirects (once might be an accident, but twice, with being told in between that some redirects are uncreatable and that he could have seen the effect himself? I doubt that). If this conduct is caused by mental issues, I feel sorry for him, but we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide therapy, and he is clearly either unwilling or incompetent to be a net positive for the project. Huon (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit I don't know much about Aspergers but I'm not aware it results in repeatedly asking as questons something which you already know the answer for [47] [48] [49] Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg [50], when it's been made clear that is unwelcome. (My understanding it someone with such a condition is much more likely to tell you extensive details about the stuff even though you have no interest and never indicated any real interest then to ask as a question you want to know about, something which you already know the answer for.) I'm also not aware it will result in trying to redirect vulgar words to something unrelated that is innocous. I'm also not particularly sure it will result in apparent trolling [51] [52] on copyright because of a dispute you're having in another place (the earlier linked Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg) (incidentally, not the first time they were asking dubious questions on copyright [53]). Also, my understanding is while pople with Aspergers may develop extensive interest in seemingly mundane narrow areas, it doesn't necessarily mean they repeatedly ask to be basically spoon feed answers which will take ages to research. (I also note while in some cases they have kept asking about the same matter for a long time like their recent trend with lifts, in other times they seem to have switched interest within days, look at the questions from Special:Contributions/84.62.205.233 for example.) I have long believed (since early 2010 or something) the user's primary goal is to get other people to waste their time and I'm not seeing anything which really makes me think different. In any case, even if I am mistaken, as Huon has said it doesn't matter. Ultimately while we do our best do accomodate whatever condition someone may have, if their behaviour becomes too disruptive because of it, we have to block. P.S. To be clear I'm not saying the entity of their behaviour is disruptive, it seems clear and looking back in to their old history makes it clear they do occasionally make useful contributions. It's just that there's also way too much disruptive behaviour. (In fact even in the 'aboriginal flag' case where they brought to our attention on commons a problematic copyright case, they were still also disruptive.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No one has to reply to them, so them making people go on a merry-go round is kind of a cruddy arguement (unless there is a substantial number of editor on the RD that are doing boring research about things of no consequence for uninteresting reasons. Are there? As for t'editor... I appreciate they are fairly incompetent but it just doesn't seem like a troll to me, even if it isn't Aspergers'. I don't know what it is, it's a gut feeling and I understand I'm not going to get anywhere trying to [b]argue[/b] that, especially when I don't have any credentials. But that's how I'm approaching this. Egg Centric 00:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Previously collapsed analysis

Bear with me and I'll analyse things a few at a time, starting with the Australian Aboriginal flag copyright issue, which is itself every bit an offence to reason as some kind of universal jinx where everyone cannot say 'twenty four', because the flag itself is SO incredibly simple. It came up much more recently on commons here for deletion, and most users had difficulty with the perennial? issue, I won't go through a very long list of people who found it 'ridiculous' or worse, just have a look at how the majority of the community handles that issue.

English speakers by percentage within European Union countries, everything in grey is not EU, so percentages there aren't shown. The lightest shade of green (bottom right) means less than 20% can speak English.

The deletion request and the three diffs before, and the one after it don't indicate anything amiss at all. They indicate to me that the person is being trolled if anything. Basically it's obvious common sense that if you cannot say anything nice, then do not say anything at all. If the people working the ref desk cannot answer a question, just let it go, rather than typing out 'Shut up' instead (in some places 'Shut up' is considered rude). I haven't looked into the German language references, but an overview of what I can see on the help desk is a few people who need counselling as far as "please do not troll people asking questions when you are unable to answer them". Not everyone can be a renaissance man/woman and if they cannot answer then they shouldn't be speaking the way they are.

The questions being asked there relate to language origins and the obvious question why is copyright over an aboriginal flag held by a person whose name clearly is not of Australian aboriginal origins. Anyhow, like I said, they should just let go of the questions that they are unable to understand.

Lol, I just saw then where he/she is going with this edit, it's the same as ca$h and taxe$ the other three I do not understand, so a clarify tag would be appropriate for those three, whilst Harold Thoma$ might be OR, I cannot find reference to any commentary beyond I guess his grab for cash from google.inc. Possibly the editor inserted OR into that article which was reverted without comment and the article itself has been tagged for OR for some 4 years ?

The person seems to be stretching the knowledge capabilities of the people at the desk, rather than civility. breaking down words for language study is ordinary, like Penyulap, is sulap meaning magic and Pen meaning keep (own or paWn) and asking literal meanings of small parts of words is ordinary in language studies. breaking down sentences, and phrases to each component and understanding them with and without context is normal. I think I saw something there that indicated he or she might have Spanish origins ?

Anyhow, this is part of the ENGVAR style dynamic. Either recognise that en wikipedia is shared by people who speak english as a second, third, or fifteenth language and will ask logically ordered questions, or cut Europe, Asia, well actually, just cut America off and the UK and everyone have their own wiki (sigh, oh pray for peace at last). It's a good idea to recognise that if a person from a different background is using English wikipedia in a logical polite ordered manner then they are not asking for any luxury if they want to ask questions and so forth. The fact that a lot of people are being uncivil to the 'outsider' is irrelevant to the cause of the incivility, you can either throw up fences around each culture and sub language or you can have universal civility where you do not ridicule someone who may well be more intelligent and or educated than you are, an accent means multiple languages and I have yet to see a person teased for having an accent by anyone who spoke more than one language. I would however like to see more of the 'biggest problem' edits from this user, or if you like just ask them to direct this user to my userpage and I'll happily screen them and see if I can help with the questions and so on.

oh, repeating questions when it appears there is an answer is not unusual when the answer in hand is unsatisfactory for some reason. Basic rule of thumb here is, if the question cannot be answered, don't try, just allow it to go stale.

I also saw something along the lines of a logical response-question to the shut up, indicating that the person matches the language and variant of the speaker by instinct, which is not at all retarded, it will very easily save your life. Actually you don't need to go outside of English or even your home country. Put one Californian English variant speaker into a different Californian English variant speakers environment and watch the deadly results, put someone from the ghetto into a courtroom, or a banker into the ghetto and it's like putting a preacher amongst cannibals or .. well you get the idea. It's S.I.S.O. or sh*t in sh*t out, because you are feeding 'shut up' into a computer that returns Mandarin for Mandarin, Spanish for Spanish, Hungarian for Hungarian.

Possibly the people at the help desk can refrain from answering questions that they are unable to answer. I've checked just a few of the diffs and edits, they seem pretty much of the same kind, are there any outside this flavour ? Penyulap ☏ 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mu

• This is my standard protest against the pointlessness of holding a ban discussion to ban a person who is not currently being allowed to edit. For years, this person has been reverted on sight, every single time they have appeared at Wikipedia. Given that a ban will not change the status quo, this is pointless bureaucratic bullshit, and we need to stop wasting the community's time with discussions like this. If this person were currently being allowed to edit Wikipedia, and if people were not reverting them and blocking them and all that, then a ban discussion would be appropriate. As this discussion changes not a single thing, it is a waste of time. --Jayron32 22:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• So snow close it. Nobody Ent 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Under what authority? Just so that someone can revert me and demand that I be desysopped for abusing my power? Yeah, that path sounds wise. Why don't you try it sometime, see how it goes. --Jayron32 23:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can do it for you if you like. Even though that analysis above has further convinced of the rightness of my position, it's clear no one will agree with me, and what is someone gonna do - de-rollback-me? You're absolutely correct that this is pointless.

p.s. Having said that, you could ignore it and it wouldn't be a problem to you and it's hard to argue that this process is actually doing harm to the 'pedia

p.p.s. yeah, they didn't kick in hard enough Egg Centric 00:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30 still has an open DRV (making it 17 days old), but the DRV doesn't appear on Wikipedia:Deletion review, so it's not getting much traffic. It probably can be closed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hacking warnings across the internet

Not sure if this would concern Wikipedia too, but over the last 2 weeks several Eurovision Song Contest websites have been hacked into by a community calling themselves "Gay Pride" who are erasing years of work on such websites in an attempt to bring down the contest which is scheduled to take place in Azerbaijan next week. Eurovision.tv was first to be hacked, and moments ago ESCToday.com became the latest victim and have had 12-years of work erased in seconds. Details of this can be found on their Facebook page. In hindsight of this, and the fact Wikipedia has articles also relating to the contest, is there anything we as a community should be doing to protect the articles from such hacking attacks? Further details can also be found at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012 Wesley☀Mouse 12:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if the Wikipedia community isn't careful the hackers could potentially erase the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article. They seem to have really good hackers at work so I think keeping an extra eye on the article is the least we could do.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "hack". If you mean, "vandalise" - in the sense of blanking of rewriting Eurovision Song Contest 2012, then yes, that seems like a real possibility: but with a few yes on it, it should get reverted and protected in a matter of seconds. If you mean "hack" in the sense of "taking control of a website without the owner's permission", then I wouldn't worry. In any case, you can't erase Wikipedia back more than a month even if you tried; we actually keep site backups for these kinds of occasion. Off the top of my head I'm not sure I know how well Wikipedia would withstand a DDoS attack, but I suspect pretty well. There's nothing to worry about here, in other words. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, great. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the concern is that a group of people calling themselves "Gay Pride" have gone about a well organised hacking attack across a variety of Eurovision-related websites. First it was Eurovision.tv who got hacked into, and they erased every bit of information from their servers. The same group then attacked ESCDaly.com; ESCKaz.com; and then ESCToday.com; by hacking into their servers and erasing years and years of material. With the seriousness and how well-organised this group of people appear to be in hacking into a server, then I felt personally it wise to inform the Wiki-community on a whole, so that we could be extra vigilant if needs be. The chances of any Eurovision related article on wikipedia being "hacked" into is just as possible as the attacks on the aforementioned websites. Wesley☀Mouse 13:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect we are much less of a target and much more prepared for such a problem. If those sites didn't back up that data and it was trully lost than they are just as much to blame as the hackers IMO. As for the data here, Wikipedia has a pretty good backup and restore system and there are several of us with at least the most recent package downloaded (It takes a lot of room even zipped BTW) and since its gonna take more than a few seconds to delete the multi terabyte database, I think were pretty safe. Kumioko (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Application to End Topic Ban

I was given an indefinite ban on August 21st, 2010 for off wiki activities related to Israel. The ban was lifted on October 28, 2011 as long as I agreed to avoid topics relating to Israel and the Middle East. In the time since, with one absent minded exception, I have held to the ban and contributed to areas of my expertise. If others would agree, I would like to have my topic ban removed for the following reasons:

1. Since the sanction I’ve done work in the article space, focusing on non-controversial topics in the areas of my expertise.
2. I’ve made good use of article talk pages, when needed, in an effort to work collaboratively with other editors.
3. In addition, I acknowledge the actions which led to the sanction. I did not act as collaboratively as this community expects and should have known better.
4. I promise to make better use of talk pages when making substantive edits and a good-faith effort to work collaboratively in the topic area.
5. I have a lot to offer in the topic area, especially in the field of culture and history. I think that my contributions during the period of the sanction demonstrate that I am not here to impose a certain POV but rather to help improve the article space.
6. I am also willing to undergo a period of probation (the duration of which to be decided by you) to help monitor compliance.

I hope that you will look with favor on this application. I am sincere in my desire to edit neutrally, collaboratively, and in a manner consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policy.

--Eric (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor - I think if you will look above you will find that you should contact the administrator who topic banned you. If I am incorrect, perhaps some administrator or editor knowledgeable on this would comment. Mugginsx (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, a WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK. Bans are usually imposed by the whole community or by ArbCom. If it was a community ban, then the usual place to appeal is here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Eric1985:

• Eric1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In fact the ban was an unblock condition that Eric1985 agreed to in October, 2011. User:Panyd then agreed to lift the block. The original block was by User:Tariqabjotu. I am notifying Panyd and Tariqabjotu of this discussion. See also:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine.

-The original ANI discussion in 2010 when the indef block was imposed. Eric1985's posts on an external website are mentioned there.

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67#User:No More Mr Nice Guy and User:Jiujitsuguy.

-An AE discussion which mentions that Eric1985 used the external website to comment on specific edits of I/P articles by named individuals.

• User talk:Eric1985/Archive3#Unblock Request - The unblock discussion in fall 2011.

Since Eric1985 has made less then 100 edits here since October 2011 I don't see enough of a track record to justify lifting his unblock condition about ARBPIA. He also seems to continue using the external site to comment on the editing of I/P articles. This is not an open-and-shut violation of anything but it does give us some inkling of his approach to editing I/P articles. - EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

EJ the guy said he's willing to undergo a period of probation. If he gets out of line, block him. True he's made about 100 edits since his block was lifted but he wasn't that active before the block either. As for his own blog, it's just that - a blog, nothing more nothing less. He's entitled to his opinion and there is no evidence of any nefarious purpose. Other editors, such as RolandR have engaged in outside activities relating to IP and we don't hold that against them. The guy is asking for a second chance. What's the harm in giving it to him?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Has Roland used external websites "to comment on specific edits of I/P articles by named individuals", though?     ←   ZScarpia   20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I was invited to participate here, given I was the one who imposed Eric's indefinite block back in August 2010. But given no one asked for my opinion before replacing his block with a topic ban, and I wasn't even informed of this action until -- well -- now, I don't understand why anyone would really care now about what I think about this matter. So, consider this an official expression of indifference toward what happens here. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the ban was for off-wiki activities related to israel, and off-wiki activities related to Israel are still ongoing (is this the right site? The latter part of this probably falls a bit short of incitement to meatpuppetry... if I got the wrong site, feel free to delete this parenthetical text), then is it really appropriate to lift the ban? Disclaimer: I'm just a random passerby with no interest in I/P articles bobrayner (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see any call to arms from that website and I concur with bobrayner that it falls short of incitement to meat puppetry. We shouldn't topic ban an editor simply because he started a critical blog. Perhaps its his way of venting. We all do that sometimes. What about the Wikipedia Review and the way editors vent their frustrations on those boards. Should we start banning those who post there as well? I say we should cut the guy some slack. Everyone deserves a second chance. He's willing to undergo probation. If he gets out of line, block him for good.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Eric has been editing Wikipedia since 2006. The NPOV policy is not difficult to understand, compliance is mandatory and neutrality is especially important in the topic area. The article from the blog selected by bobrayner is direct evidence of a failure to understand this critically important policy.

"Where NPOV Fails ... Just 50 years ago, someone would not look at you twice for calling a black person a “nigger,” but we all know that we not an NPOV term. The same goes for terms like “Israeli Occupied Territories,” which are, in fact, disputed territories."

Referring to the territories that are occupied by Israel and recognized as such by the entire world as reflected in countless reliable sources using the entirely NPOV compliant term “Israeli Occupied Territories” is not like a racial slur...at all. This is obvious. Perhaps that can all be written off as an irrelevant personal opinion and venting ? No, because when you combine "which are, in fact, disputed territories" with the statement that follows later "If you are certain that your edits are factual and well sourced, you can confidently make changes that will be in the open encyclopedia indefinitely", as the editor appears to be, you have direct evidence that this profound misunderstanding of policy, and in fact, reality as represented by RS (it's not Wikipedia's fault), presents a risk to content that is easily avoided by not giving editors the privileges to do things they haven't earned. The editor has had almost 6 years to understand what NPOV means. He may be sincere in his desire to edit neutrally but this shows that after 6 years he doesn't know what it means. Are we going to have a general amnesty for editors who have been expelled from the topic area for breaking the rules, PalestineRemembered perhaps, because everyone deserves a second chance and if they get out of line they can be blocked ? I hope not. Should we start banning those who post on other sites ? Yes, probably, if there is clear evidence that they are here to advocate and they don't understand mandatory policies. The topic area is bad enough already. I can't see how allowing Erik back will make it better. Where are all the neutral editors who just want to make the encyclopedia better ? Wikipedia should be making it more difficult for people to enter and remain in the topic area. Having checked for a potential conflict of interest on my part, Erik has not taken much interest in my editing in the topic area and I would defend his right to be as critical as he wants in his blog, but I think there is insufficient evidence available to indicate that allowing the editor to return would be a good idea and improve the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Sean, The Comparison with User:PalestineRemembered is misplaced and the two accounts should not be placed in the same category. First, PalestineRemembered was indefinitely blocked for egregious sock puppetry, editing under at least 9 different accounts[54] Second, PalestineRemembered had one of the worst recidivist block records of any editor[55] One can not say that he wasn't warned of his bad behavior. Eric on the other hand never abused multiple accounts and until his indef, had never been blocked. Aside from that one block, his record is squeaky clean. As long as he keeps his personal POV out of the article space and edits in a neutral dispassionate manner and his edits are sourced with verifiable and reliable sources and he discusses his edits on the relevant Talk pages, everything should be okay.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with JJG above, if Eric misbehaves, we could always block him again and curse his name. The procedure above appears as a good faith effort on a part of editor to contribute to not so pretty side of Wikipedia. And I might be missing something, but if the site linked above by Bobrayner is correct, I'm not sure how is it different from other Wikipedia criticism sites like Wikipediocracy.com AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So it boils down to this. The syop who issued the original sanction is indifferent as to this application and as AgadaUrbanit pointed out, if he misbehaves we can always block him and curse his name. I don’t know about the "curse his name" part but yeah, he can always be blocked should the need arise. Everyone deserves a second chance and this request seems sincere.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a special effort to pick PalestineRemembered because you said "everyone deserves a second chance" in the topic area. You've said it twice now but it is not what you mean. Okay, if it's not really everyone, it's only certain people who match an unspecified set of criteria who deserve a second chance, perhaps it would better for the re-admission rules to be centrally agreed and formalized before anyone is allowed back, who knows, but I do know that it's the editors in the topic area who need to pick up the pieces if things go wrong. Erik's POV is his own business but what I see is recent evidence of someone with very strong views who clearly doesn't understand policy, a somewhat incendiary combination given the tinderbox nature of the topic area. I'm also concerned about Erik's attitude towards the topic area and other editors. See his farewell note "Why I Am Not Here Anymore" for example. Apparently he was tired of the anti-Semitism. If he had been helping to look after the Eustace Mullins article outside of the topic area, a nest of anti-Semites if I've ever seen one, I might understand what he said, but I wonder, given that saying occupied is apparently just like saying nigger, if these anti-Semites are in fact the same people who understand that "disputed territories" does not comply with NPOV and "Israeli occupied territories" complies with NPOV perfectly, people who are trying to do what editors are required to do, ensure policy compliance and make sure that the articles are neutral according Wikipedia's definition despite the difficulties. You'll note that that message also includes a accusation of anti-Semitism against an editor for no reason whatsoever and the statement "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." I wonder who these people are and whether Erik is still sending them here. That brings me to sockpuppetry. This is the most difficult aspect and I am unsure what to say and how policy applies to what people do offsite. Not personally using sockpuppetry is to be congratulated of course, but sockpuppetry is such a big problem in the topic area that for me it's not just about whether someone uses sockpuppetry, it's also about their attitude towards sockpuppetry, whether they will combat it or whether they think the ends justify the means, turn a blind eye or associate/collaborate with serial sockpuppeteers offsite. There is something about Erik's blog that I find very troubling from this perspective but the WP:OUTING policy prevents me from describing it here. I'm not actually sure what to do about this. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a twelve month contribution history before removing such a ban. There's plenty of world outside of I/P areas, and the low number of edits over a six month period isn't inspiring, but nor is it damning. Rather than a probation period after unbanning; I'd prefer to see a history of working in dispute resolution, npov, and reliable sourcing. All of which are open via noticeboards and would provide a way to induct an editor most deeply into community editing standards by being exposed to a wide variety of cases. Obviously the editor would need to avoid I/P related dispute, npov and rs type issues; but such a thing is easy to do. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In theory I'd be willing to support an end to the ban subject to probation. The problem is, it's not easy to edit on I/P issues without running into some sort of controversy so if User:Eric1985 does start editing in that sphere again I can't see it ending well. If we lift the ban he would have to tread VERY carefully. What's more, (and this is a bit WP:BEANSy) I'm worried that there are some malicious folks around who would see an editor on probation as an easy target, and try to make an otherwise harmless edit into something controversial in order to get him into further trouble. If these are risks Eric1985 is willing to take then fine, but he needs to be fully aware how thin the ice is he might be skating on - and what the repercussions are of falling through. ^(uninvolved)waggers (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@waggers, what you say makes sense. I-P is a dangerous minefield of sorts (I know from personal experience) and an editor on probation would be an easy target for elimination. I think that a middle ground approach can be reached however. Something in between your suggestion and Fifelfoo's. We can allow Eric1985 to start editing IP but only talk pages, discussion pages and collaboration pages but not actual articles. Give it two months. If we see good contributions and discussion, we can graduate him to editing articles. Just a thought.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

As per the outcome of the recent Arbitration Comittee Case on User:Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), he was to be stripped of his administrator privilege on the condition he may request them again at any time with an RfA. This has been done, but my post is about this: the edit filter permissions were also removed at the same time by bureaucrat EVula as shown in the log here. But why? There was nothing in the remedy enforced about this. Since then he has been granted the rights below admin again by Reaper Eternal with the explanation of "May need". But the edit filter manager permissions were still not there and I don't understand why. At the policy page at WP:EFM the line "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted." makes you think that's why. But as he already had it, why was it taken away? This random removal of rights makes me think somebody didn't read the arbitrators' decision properly. Maybe a bureaucrat. Maybe EVula. Either way, why? Rcsprinter (state) 16:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There was no reason to think that he would abuse this privilage and there was nothing in the Arbcom ruling requiring this be removed. Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a noticeboard thread about this. Just go ask EVula, it was probably just an oversight or misunderstanding. 28bytes (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the removal was proper. Admins can give themselves this right and it appears this is what Rich did. Non-admins get the right after a discussion and consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. As such a discussion never took place he only had the right as a result of being an admin and as such I think it's quite reasonable that loss of admin status also resulted in loss of edit filter manager. If Rich wants to regain the right then he should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter (where I for one would probably support). Dpmuk (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter, did you notify Rich that you're discussing him on a noticeboard? Or EVula? Or Reaper Eternal? One of the reasons I unwatchlisted AN/I this week was because people who should know better keep starting threads there about people without taking the basic step of talking to the other person first. I don't want to have to unwatchlist this board as well. Go talk to these people. Asking the Administrators Noticeboard why EVula did something when you haven't asked EVula is completely irresponsible. 28bytes (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to retain it, as I have worked on edit filters a couple of times. But it's not something I'm going to loose sleep over - I've lost enough as it is. Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith? What's that? EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Spam is broken

Wikiproject Spam has spam reports going back to April and with an addition I just made to the page, the template expansion has now passed the point where it renders correctly. Not sure who patrols that page, but it looks like some reports need dealing with and some probably need archiving. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I took a look at Template:Link summary and didn't see any obvious optimization that could be done to it to lower its expansion burden; perhaps someone more well-versed with templates could take a look at that one, {{IP summary}} and {{User summary}} and see if there's any room for improvement. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • One could probably shave off a few bytes by eliminating all of those HTML comments. There are 29 HTML comments in {{Link summary}}. Multiply that by the number of times that that template is transcluded, … Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've archived one old discussion to bring the template expansion below the limit once more. This appears to regularly happen at this wikiproject. MER-C is one of a handful of people who regularly hand-archive things. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Too bad there's no archiving bot over there. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • There is, but we've had a really quiet period followed by a really busy one. I've shortened the archival time to 14 days (from 21). MER-C 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

MER-C, you may be a "spam-fighter", can you explain what the actual purpose of WT:SPAM is? I tried a few times, years ago, to ask there / offer to help but my questions basically scrolled away above a flood of postings which didn't actually need action. The page has always been large enough to destabilize my browser, so I basically gave up on anything to do with battling spam. Maybe this is a good place to ask what it's all about? Franamax (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The page serves as our institutional memory. Recividism is common and spam campaigns often last years, with breaks of months in between scattered over multiple IPs and accounts (current example: WT:WPSPAM#Best China Hotel spam on Wikipedia: spam edits up to two years ago). The historical record is an important resource when it comes to justifying blacklisting. Spam fighting is hence a data-intensive activity (this explains the pile of reports with no action). Spamming is often a highly organized form of vandalism. The other side sometimes consist of paid (black hat, or just incompetent) social media marketers and SEOs. MER-C 02:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Between looking at the main spam info page and the page with all the reports on it I'm blown away that it seems TWO PEOPLE are doing all of the work over there. MER-C and Hu12 should get a raise. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose tripling their pay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles created for the good of education

Apologies if this has already been covered in another forum somewhere. I searched all admin noticeboards for "t mills kelly atlantic" with no results.

The Atlantic has published a story detailing how a professor encouraged his students to write fake Wikipedia articles to make a point about the weakness of information on the Internet. Preacher/choir here.

The class is being offered again and per the story in the Atlantic, the prof is again "warning the Internet" that he intends to do the same stuff.

Can we preemptively block these folks? A controversial all-institution block on the school? Because that's why AN exists. For controversy. --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. A breaching experiment consisting of hoaxing is an addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and doing it multiple times is absolutely grounds for blocking. Usernames, please? Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We have this article, and I assume the original article on Edward Owens was deleted as vandalism. Some usernames should be in the deleted edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I expect new students taking the course will create new throw-away usernames. Blocking the old ones won't prevent that. Even IP-blocking the entire university probably wouldn't have much of an effect (except making our displeasure at such methods known). Huon (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest perhaps blocking account creation from the start of the course & implementing some sort of "in-your-face" notice politely requesting people from that IP address don't abuse Wikipedia. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The most interesting take from this whole story is that the AGF nature of WP allows WP to be severely abused by those that have the will to do so. Makes for a pretty strong argument in favor of registered users. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This should qualify as a Terms of Service (TOS) violation which should then be formally communicated to the institution. If it doesn't, then appropriate terms should be put into place. "Creating deliberately misleading or false content" should be a clear violation. If the institution does not act, then their entire IP address range gets blocked. One step at a time. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• It appears the 2012 class ended a week ago and the editing took place on WP in April, according to the course syllabus. If you read the Atlantic article linked above and follow the links in it, the class created three articles on Wikipedia this term, none of which were hoaxes in themselves, but were used to add credibility to the two hoaxes they had posted elsewhere, this one and this one. The WP articles they created were Brown's Brewery, Alice Walsh, and Florence "Diamond Flossie" Reilly (the latter two deleted at AfD). One of the editors involved and his socks were blocked after Sockpuppet investigations/Ceravantes. Don't know about any of the other students. Re the SPI, I suspect not all of them were the same person, rather several students working on the project. The check user noted that they only matched in pairs, but all were editing from the same institutional IP. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the event is over, but for future instances, I'd rather not preemptively block anyone. We'd be better off to monitor any names created as part of the experiment, revert vandalism as it appears, and block users who do it repeatedly. In other words, follow our normal process, and if there is an honest article written about the results, it will report that the experiment was an abysmal failure. Note carefully: I am not advocating doing nothing. If there is a way to monitor who the new user names are, we should aggressively add them to multiple watchlists and monitor. I don't know enough about the tech side to be specific, but I assume that someone can watch for new names arising from an IP or IP range.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Edward Owens (hoax) article was the hoax itself; over its history it's been converted from the hoax to an article about the hoax. I deleted the Brown's Brewery article earlier today, but I quickly restored it after I realised that we have reliable sources speaking of it as having been a real place. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have checked this. The creator of the Edward Owens article, Savethepirate, was indeffed for vandalism in 2009.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And the same is true of Scottieraz, the only other person to make substantive edits to the article before this edit converted it from a hoax article to an article about a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• ToS violation I'm was thinking along the same lines as User:VєсrumЬа on this one. This appears to be a terms of service violation and I'd like to see legal get involved contacting the institution.--v/r - TP 15:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Meta:Terms of use, for convenience. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Their one and only hoax article/ToS violation on Wikipedia, Edward Owens, was over three years ago. The articles they created this time were not hoaxes. The two deleted articles were on real people and can be sourced from newspapers from the period, e.g. this one and this one. They were deleted per WP:ONEEVENT. Perhaps they got the message about putting hoaxes actually on Wikipedia after the 2008 brouhaha. Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the most recent course, they appear to have been using meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry to slip articles through the Articles for Creation process (judging by the SPI you linked above). Not a ToS violation, perhaps, but not exactly nondisruptive behavior, either. Deor (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the ToS issues, what this professor is doing is very unethical and serves as a spit in the face to those who work hard in maintaining the quality of this encyclopedia. If George Mason University is not going to take any action against this professor for his conduct (my guess is that they would cite academic freedom), then we need to; to that extent, I fully support blocking all IPs that belong to George Mason University, either indefinitely or, alternatively, treating them as if they were open proxies. We cannot allow such willful and deliberate efforts to undermine this encyclopedia to continue unopposed. --MuZemike 16:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand peoples reaction to these things. However count me as someone who thinks that indef blocking an entire university is a step that should have actual Foundation involvement & Backing, and not just a small WP:AN consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Treat it like any other vandalism. As usual, a few very sporadic vandals at a university are not grounds for blocking the whole thing, regardless of any perceived official backing they may have. Prodego ^talk 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Blocking the entire university seems a bit over-the-top since the hoax article incident was a one-off that happened over 3 years ago and has not been repeated. The AfC shenanigans were mildly disruptive, but in fact any of those users could have just put the articles directly onto Wikipedia without going through that process, and as I pointed out they weren't hoaxes. I've seen a lot worse stuff get approved at AfC. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why through the WMF? We did it before with Scientology (albeit that was an action by ArbCom). I think we are responsible enough to decide for ourselves what to do. --MuZemike 17:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for off-wiki action based on violations of the TOS, you'll have to talk with WMF, since Arbcom can't take legal action. If you think that on-wiki action will suffice, there's no need to go to WMF. This is not simple vandalism — someone in a position of authority is requiring others to vandalise Wikipedia. Any future violations need to be given wider-ranging responses, and I expect that only a total campuswide block would be able to prevent this type of editing, unless we tried to get WMF to be involved on legal grounds. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it won't be my ass on the line for blocking a 25K student university.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me clarify: I was concentrating more at on-wiki action as opposed to off-wiki action; the latter would need some Foundation-level assistance, but that shouldn't stop our editing community from taking any actions (i.e. via blocking) ourselves, even in the meantime. --MuZemike 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

But he hasn't "required" them to vandalize Wikipedia this time and in any case, they didn't vandalize it at all. The article on Florence "Diamond Flossie" Reilly (still visible here) was considerably more encyclopedic and interesting than a lot of the other schlock here. It's also unclear whether he required them to create the 2008 hoax article either, although he clearly acquiesced. Apart from the "feel good" factor, what exactly would such a block prevent? The students could simply edit from their home computers. The course only runs every 2 or 3 years. Is the university supposed to remain blocked forever on the off-chance that the students might repeat in 2014 what they did in 2008? Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm, the creation of hoax articles is definitely vandalism; that's why blatant hoaxes are deletable under speedy criterion G3, vandalism. And notice that I said "future violations"; I'm not suggesting we do anything now or in the immediate future. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree we are far from a situation justifying drastic action, but I don't see any downside in calling WMF legal's attention to the Atlantic article, perhaps with a summary of what has happened on Wikipedia to date. They can act or not as they see fit. A letter to the university's legal department asking how this behavior fits with their standards of conduct might be appropriate, for example. At least WMF legal should be aware in case the situation gets much worse in the future, perhaps with other schools encouraging students to hoax us as an "exercise."--agr (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:Voceditenore for drawing this to my attention. :) I will make sure that the Legal & Community Advocacy Team is aware so they may consider any appropriate reaction. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC) (Oh, P.S., just in case it's unclear: I don't mean this in lieu of any community response.)

The only hoax article from this course that has been documented so far made The Signpost (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-10/News and notes#A notable hoax?) and the administrators' noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Edward Owens) three years ago, as you can see, while the AFD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens (hoax)) was open. Let's-rangeblock-a-university didn't really gain much traction even then. Also notice that the 2012 Atlantic article itself quotes Jimbo Wales as responding to this two years ago, in a June 2010 interview at the Chronicle of Higher Education. You know where User talk:Jimbo Wales is if you want to ask Jimbo whether The Atlantic is quoting him accurately and in context, or draw his attention to this year's course that apparently does not involve hoax encyclopaedia articles. Uncle G (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we put a blackout frontpage redirect from en.wikipedia.org, with a notice instructing those pondering a hoax to please test their products on Reddit first? Nathan ^T 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On a scale of 1 to 10, this is about a 2, despite Atlantic coverage. Just need to keep a good lookout. I don't think monitoring of the ips from the University would be justified, let alone blocking them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, given the timing, I won't personally lose any sleep or whether or not the University IPs are blocked, but I still think such actions are wholly reprehensible and that the professor in question should be ashamed of himself for pissing on our encyclopedia like that. --MuZemike 19:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Atlantic story says: This time, the class decided not to create false Wikipedia entries. Instead, it used a slightly more insidious stratagem, creating or expanding Wikipedia articles on a strictly factual basis, and then using their own websites to stitch together these truthful claims into elaborate hoaxes. Which would imply no Wikipedia policies were violated. Nobody Ent 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tempest in a teapot. It was like saying paper isn't useful because water can make it fall apart, then this professor grabs a fire hose. Either the guy is a serious intellectual who wants to keep his students on their toes by thinking critically, or he has a big grudge against Wikipedia. Either way, I really like the quote: "If there's a simple lesson in all of this, it's that hoaxes tend to thrive in communities which exhibit high levels of trust." Reddit killed the hoax. Wikipedia's extensive logging system helped them kill it. While you can deface the walls here, you simply can't keep the paint from being easily wiped off. -- Avanu (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Right. The articles four years ago were a problem for Wikipedia. The edits in this semester were real articles, with no ToS violations. Creating factual Wikipedia article to be used as references for a hoax elsewhere may be a problem elsewhere, but it's not a problem for Wikipedia per se. --Ben (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's Brewery now exists. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot and a 2 on some arbitrary scale on the Administrator's Noticeboard where no consensus exists that this is even problematic behavior. This is what Dr. Kelly means by saying Wikipedia has a weak community. I wonder if I showed up in Dr. Kelly's class uninvited and maligned his credibility in front of his students how his community would respond. Maybe if I ask pointed and loaded questions about how he feels about plagiarizing his dissertation. I don't know if he did that nor do I care, but I just want to prove how easy it is to blather on about shit I know nothing about. I bet I'd get escorted from the classroom by campus police as I became more persistent. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for social experiments because it's clear Wikipedia's amoral society is strongly influenced by apathy, confusion, and misdirection. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check your facts -- Kelly didn't say Wikipedia has a weak community, that was the article writer Applebaum. Kelly's 2012 class's interactions with Wikipedia violated no policies and his later comments were not Wikipedia bashing. Kelly quotes Applebaum's point in a later blog post and says that it's an interesting idea worth exploring, but doesn't go beyond that. -Ben (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How does this address any part of this problem? Kelly is clearly taking advantage of this kind of communication, where this community's standards have been breached and through the lack of focus and clarity at AN, he's welcome to continue. Your comment instead is an example of how easy it is to misdirect attention from a problem by attempting to refocus on a minor detail. AN is adrift in lack of consensus to act despite clear standards already laid out. The easier it is to stall action by downplaying problematic behavior the more evident Wikipedia's weaknesses are. Kelly said it/the article's author said it. Shit, I'm saying it. This is a weak community. It has no clear focus or goals. It cannot decide to act when it's priorities are compromised. It cannot pragmatically decide what its priorities are: protection of content/credibility, making the site available to anyone, or a complete lack of priority? --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Which problem? That's the core of the issue. My comment addressed yours of 21:48, 17 May 2012 above, which I read as taking near-personal offence at something Kelly never said. Apologies if I mis-read your intentions, but that's what I was responding to. Back on topic, we need to decide on what the problem actually is. Yes, in 2009 his class violated Wikipedia standards with their hoax article and were banned for it. A pox upon them all, I guess. However, the incident I thought we were discussing here is that in 2012 his class--with malice aforethought--created three factual, reliably-sourced, not-especially-notable Wikipedia articles.

The community response to this incident is unfocused and apathetic because it's not clear that anything bad at all happened from Wikipedia's perspective. Yes, the incident caused an Atlantic columnist to call the Wikipedia community "weak". But a lot of the outrage is a reaction to the 2009 hoax, which was resolved already and should be old news to anyone discussing the 2012 articles. (Also, compare the quiescent status of that hoax with the continuous vandalism of Elephant, thanks to Stephen Colbert fans.) You write as if Mills Kelly is some prank-playing Wikipedia-hater, sending off his student minions to create (well-researched, factual) articles, then cackling as he watches Wikipedians in this discussion thread scurry around in disarray. That's really not the case, as his writings about Wikipedia [56][57][58][59][60][61][62] show. If it were, we'd all be in favor of torpedoing his undersea headquarters and letting his Persian cat drown with him, but it's just not obvious.

Were the articles later used to troll reddit? Yes. I don't think that it's Wikipedia's job to patrol the places it's cited, however. Fair ball. (Full disclosure: I once commented on Kelly's blog[63], I have commented in some of the same threads as Applebaum where it's possible that we conversed directly with each other, and I've been an occasional editor of Wikipedia for a very long time. I am not disinterested.) -Ben (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard in public domain

You guys have put this noticeboad in the public domain, unrestricted. Is that a good idea, considreing what's discussed? I'm just trying to be helpful - don't shoot the messenger. Wickwack124.178.51.186 (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What? The purpose of this noticeboard is to notify administrators of things requiring their attention.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Creative commons license is not public domain. Nobody Ent 02:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Is he talking about the whole noindex thing? Arkon (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's more it, as copyright isn't really a concern from the "considreing what's discussed" angle — Wickwack sure seems to be concerned about the content being available for anyone to see. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not talking about copyright, he's implying that AN should be private. Night Ranger (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In AN, you are discussing trolls, vandals, hoaxers, and other undesirables/nuisances, and what to do about them. And the whole world including such undesirables, who may not even be registered wikipedians, can see it, and edit it. This may incite/enable/inspire them to wreak further nuisance. I won't spell it out further - I don't want to give anyone ideas. Wickwack121.215.64.119 (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people like you who aren't registered Wikipedians sometimes get pestered by those trolls, vandals, etc., and people like you often have good ideas about what to do about them. If we didn't let people like you see this page, we'd have a harder time keeping the encyclopedia in order. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Up the top it says:

deletion of sensitive personal information → requests for oversight. Please DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone.

Everything else should be fine in a public forum. Note that it is a noticeboard for discussing things that are elsewhere in a public place, and private discussions have different, sometimes serious, issues of their own. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a well meaning, but perhaps unfamiliar, comment that isn't obviously going to change anything. I suggest closing it up. Nothing to be done. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is very likely the "reference desk troll", who has just been banned from Wikipedia as per the above discussion. --MuZemike 05:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

They're not even on the same continent. German reference desk troll is German, and Wickwack's IPs are all Australian. I'm curious to how you arrived at this. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In answer to Nyttend: It isn't working, is it? Take a look at Ref Desk. The quality of questions, and answers, is dropping. These days its full of stuff like "Did I see the moon?", "Forcing another arsehole", and similar junk, plus frequent requests for medical advice. Some of the Wikipedia articles are dropping in quality too - they can seem like just someone running off their mouth, rather than being informative.

In answer to MuZemike: I can't tell whether you meant I'm the "reference desk troll", or you meant Shadowjams is the "refrence desk troll". If you meant me, then a) you have it wrong, b) you are shooting the messenger, so up your nose with a rubber hose, and c) banned??? banned from what???. If you meant Muzemike, well, I can't speak for him, but (c) still applies, and probably (b) as well.

Wickwack124.178.61.235 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean about it not working? There aren't any relevant threads here that I could find, but I found at least two threads at WP:ANI right now where un-logged-in Wikipedians are using the page as they're supposed to — in the middle of a controversy, one has proposed sanctions in a reasonable manner against another editor, and the other has participated constructively in a discussion about vandalism. When un-logged-in Wikipedians need administrative assistance, they need to be able to go somewhere, and if we didn't let just anyone see this page, where would they ask for help in problematic situations? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. A poet is famous enough that his newly published books and poems -due to their political content- attract notable news coverage from main-stream news agencies. However, he has never won any major prizes. I wonder if he qualifies for notability to have a Wiki article. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARTIST. Who is this poet and can you point to a few articles on their work? ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the guy. The articles in main-stream news agencies are not in English:

• همشهری آنلاین
• خبرگزاری ایسنا
• وبگاه خبری مهر نیوز
• سایت خبری تابناک
• سایت خبری پارسینه
• روزنامه جام جم
• خبرگزاری ایرنا
• خبر آنلاین
• وبگاه الف
• عصر ایران

--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at most of them and only a few look like they cover the subject in a substantial way. Can't really say more because I have no clue if any of these are considered reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead, he is most likely notable. Just source every statement, since for most of us it is not easy to check with the Farsi sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ANd use English-language sources whenever possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

to clarify, add English language sources when possible. Do not omit the best sources merely because they're non-english--a good way to deal with cases like this is to include in the notes translations of the key passages that show the notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And to be even clear, if there are no english sources available at all, but these are otherwise reliable for notability, just make sure to provide snippets of english translations (we assume accurate) when citing said sources (per WP:UE). Notability does not require sources be in English (though preferred if at all possible) --MASEM (t) 06:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your clarifications to my statement. The editor should make a positive effort to find English-language sources if they exist, or provide translations where necessary. Whenever possible, English-language sources should be used, so that our English-speaking readership can verify the citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for a block

Resolved

 – User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please block User:Qais13 for good? The user has been turning Wikipedia articles into a mockery for over a month and nobody seems to have paid any attention to that. This is what the article about Shahnaz Pahlavi looked like before that user started tampering with it and this is what he or she turned it into: claims about Farah being a monarch and the Shah being merely a consort, photographs of Queen Dina of Jordan and the singer Googoosh being presented as photographs of Shahnaz Pahlavi, claims of a dual Empire of Iran and Budapest, etc, etc. The user has done the same thing with a number of other articles, as can be seen [64]. Therefore, I once again beg that someone blocks this user. Surtsicna (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Qais13 looks to me like a vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This user made some of the most bizarre edits I have ever seen. My jaw cannot help dropping when I discover another articles visited by him or her. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Block I had the Shahnaz Pahlavi article on an informal watch due to having to remove some other nonsense a few weeks back. Qais13's edit history (there and elsewhere) shows a definite pattern of adding details of a bizarre fantasy world inhabited by certain royals and pop-cultural favourites, with absurd alterations to personal details and factual and historical records. Messages to the talk page have not been answered, and seemingly ignored, as these edits continues without any sign of attempting to adhere to guidelines. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this on WP:AN instead of WP:ANI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• BW is correct that this is more appropriate for ANI, but since it's here, and easily resolved, probably easier to leave it. I looks like some of the edits are real (not sure, the subject matter isn't my strong suit), but so many are so obviously goofy or fantasy or wrong that we can't be expected to sort which is which each time he edits. Combined with the lack of response to talk page messages, I'm indef blocking... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

We have a back log of stuff at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.Moxy (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Request closer for old, complicated RFD

We have an open RFD that is now approaching 2 months open. It can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Tai chi, and the discussion is quite involved. But at almost 2 months of discussion, with the last comment well over a week ago, this needs closing. But the complexity is likely a good part of why no one has stepped up to close it. So if someone with a bit of time is willing to wade into closing this one, it would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Jc37. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia town

I recently discovered this news story about "Monmouthpedia". The launch of the "Wikipedia town" is tomorrow so it might be good to keep a close watch on the pages in Category:Monmouth, Wales. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely going to be some bad eggs there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA. I still think/hope that QR codes are a fad that will soon pass once a more compact form of information known as the "name" is introduced. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Global blocking interface message needs to be migrated

Note that this was posted at WP:VPT but no-one paid any attention whatsoever. Instead of MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked, MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked is now the message shown to users when they are globally blocked. These two messages do not have the same number of parameters (4 for the former, 5 for the latter). Can admin please make the conversion of MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked to something like MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed (I'm not even going to read the thread below, as I know I can't fix that!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, you do realize that the two don't have the same parameters?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not fixed then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe $6 is optional. All that needs changing is $4→$5 and $5→$6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

I was told to post this here if I ever wanted to get any rights, but I suppose this is the place to say that I got nominated for Autopatrol. I was nominated by Breawycker public (Breawycker) earlier today. The nomination by Breawycker was supported by Dr. Blofeld. I have no issues with this, but I want to see what others have-to-say. I also had a barnstar on my talk page, which told me to go request it (after I was nominated) because I spammed up New Pages with articles about beetles. I would like the community's voice on this. (I had nothing to do with the nomination before seeing it.) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I literally mentioned this on your talk page seconds before you posted here. You're clogging up New Pages Patrol with your damn sourced, notable, well-intentioned articles. :) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Been told 'hundreds' (not literally) of times today. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I made 250-300 'acceptable stubs'. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Re-open

I would like to re-open the above thread, as it appears to have been prematurely closed by the requestor. Tom asked me this week here if I was willing to revisit his topic ban from requesting userrights to have autopatrol and I said no, as people were still finding copyvios and issues with his mass new page creations. I find it fairly disingenuous of Tom to post at Wikipedia:PERM/A#User:Tomtomn00 and not mention his restriction or my recent denial of autopatrol or this other ANI thread about misuse of automated tools. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't request them, I don't honestly need them. Take 'em away if you like. I'd have no issue with it. I can't take responsility for this, as it was supported, and some of my pages were patrolled by the admin who granted me it.--Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. The rights should not be granted unless this user creates more articles in different areas for atleast 1-2 months without any deletion or copyvio issues coming up. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 22:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Support or, actually, until April 2013 perUser_talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/15#Blocked. Granted, technically he did not request the right, but the spirit of the agreement suggests that he should not accept them, either. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not asking you to take responsibility for other people's actions. I'm saying I think it was disingenuous to participate in the discussions they started about giving you autopatrol without disclosing other relevant information. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly realistic to expect Tom to turn up at such a discussion and start listing reasons he shouldn't have rights proposed by someone else. Quite adequate for someone else to provide that information.

Nor is there any suggestion that him not speaking up in such a way was an attempt to allow the nomination to carry on "under the radar". After all, he opened this section here so that there will be plenty of scrutiny from anyone with an interest in it. (He shouldn't have closed it quite so fast, but that was easily fixed.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fair, but he did that in the earlier request on his page, so I was surprised he did not continue his openness at the RFPERM. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I absolutely agree! Asking for the community's 'voice' and then closing the discussion after only 1 comment (and less than 50 minutes after opening it), is certainly not a good thing. Tomtomn00's article creation history (other than the single sentence, single source 'beetle' articles) leaves a great deal to be desired, in my opinion, and, despite the fact that autopatroled has already been granted, deserve a closer look. Tomtomn00's proclivity for deleting (quickly) negative comments on his talk page and almost hourly archiving (in a number of different places) make it difficult to review the history of comments. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no comment on whether or not he should have the autopatrolled right. However, I should point out that numerous users today, including myself, independently and with no prior knowledge of his rights record suggested on his talk page that he should apply for the right. This was because today alone he created 40+ stub articles about assorted species of beetles, all of which were adequately sourced and notable. Assuming good faith here, it's likely that he requested the right because several people thought he should do it, and not because he was trying to get around admins and game the system. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I created around 300 stubs. I was nominated. I got support from a few unknown editors - I didn't ask. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If NPP think he should have it, by all means grant it as you guys are the experts in that area. I don't think he was trying to game the system either, but there have been enough blanked complaints and deletion notifications on his userpage that I thought this matter deserved further attention. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm the admin who granted Tomtom autopatrolled status after seeing his many creations today and the threads on his talk page. I was unaware of his history of copyright violations and topic ban. While I do think that absent that history, what he did today would justify granting autopatrolled, I'm not thrilled to realize I granted it without full knowledge of that history. I can only blame myself for not looking at the history of his talk page. If anyone with more detailed information about Tomtom's history thinks his getting autopatrolled status today was not a good thing, I have no objections to its being removed again. Also, feel free to slap me with a trout. LadyofShalott 03:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment on the formatting of the beetle articles he created. I see that the year was linked in "It was discovered in (insert year here)." What's the latest ruling on WP:MOSDATE? Yes or no to linking year in general? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:DATELINK says that Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter — that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. →Στc. 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Σ, okay! I'll fix 'em later. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 06:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a small solution to this. First, someone takes a look at my article creations (while I have autopatrol) at the end of this month. Second, if they're 'copyvios' or just nonsense, the right should be removed. If not, it should stay. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The best solution is to prevent recurrence of the original problems. Having had Tomtomn00 on my watchlist for a long time, and have seen even fairly recent issues, I am taking LofSh up on their offer and have removed the autopatrolled bit. There is no way this editor should have the ability to bypass patrolling, especially considering their recent history. Give me 6 months of no problems, feel free to re-apply with pure honesty and open-ness (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Like Lady I was also unaware of the topic ban and copyvios. Either way though I'm sure the editor learned his lesson last time and won't do it again. I say give him two weeks trial and if he botches up stubs then remove the autopatrol.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have learned since then. I passed Demiurge1000's copyright mentoring course a few days ago. Dr. Blofeld, I like your suggestion of giving me it back, with a two-week trial — however, I would extend to 3 weeks for more information. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you have only slightly learned, and your attitude is showing it. Look, when a med-student takes a course in surgical implements, I'm not going to send him into the operating room the day after. Practice practice practice, especially after your history: heck, if I remember correctly you were almost given a long long break from this project. You need to prove yourself, and acting like this is quite the opposite (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I guess... I'll have to try and not spam up NewPages with beetle articles, as I've got 100's-of-thousands left to do. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Your FIRST step is to go back and fix the problems with the ones you created already - do not create a single stub until every single one of the originals are fixed according to the WP:MOS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I will try. I was told the stubs are good, but I'll have a go.  Doing.... --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath

Yes, the rights have gone and been removed (I would've liked a vote before they were removed). As fixing the Category on the pages would take a while, Dr. Blofeld suggested I should get AWB. Quote:

“ You should apply for AWB to make repetitive editing mistakes, would save time.. ”

— I replied stating the fact that I cannot do that. After that it was suggested I apply for autopatrolled myself by Mr. Stradivarius. Quote: "Hi Tomtomn00. Let me add to the above remarks that you shouldn't be marking these pages as patrolled yourself, either. (E.g. this one.) That's a bit of a wikiquette no-no. :) You probably want to apply for the autopatrolled user right instead." Thanks for reading, --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• *blink* Marking your own creations as patrolled? Make that 12 months, problem-free before requesting the permission in the future. Just because someone who doesn't know your entire history suggests something, doesn't mean you try and get it - especially when you personally know your own issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mark them as patrolled, that was when I was autopatrolled — but they thought that. I was meant to point out the autopatrol bit. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 11:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that above that Bwilkins did go ahead and remove the autopatrolled right from Tomtom. I don't disagree with that move at all. As far as marking one's own edits as patrolled, I'm willing to take Tomtom's word that he didn't do that; edits were just autopatrolled during the few hours he had that right. However, I am quite surprised to learn that it is even possible to patrol one's own edits. I didn't think the system allowed that. Surely that's a technical glitch that could be fixed? We should not ever have a question of if someone patrolled his/her own articles. LadyofShalott 12:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not? If someone gets the bit it means they are fit to patrol articles. If they have understanding which articles could be patrolled, why can not they patrol their own articles which are still available in the queue (provided of course they are fine to be patrolled)?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Now as I though about this, probably if someone becomes an AP, all their articles in the queue get patrolled. If this is correct, there is no issue about partolling own articles. I am not sure however.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As you seem to have figured out in your second post, yes, if a person has the autopatrolled right, their new articles are automatically patrolled - that is, in fact, what it means to have the autopatrolled right. LadyofShalott 14:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you did not get my point at all (and did not bother to check the logs, for instance my patrol log, to make sure you did), but never mind. My point was that if it is technically possible for someone to patrol their own articles, I do not see anything wrong with patrolling their own articles. I am not sure though this is technically possible. It is anyway definitely not the case for Tomtomn00, as they never patrolled their own articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your patrol log has to do with it, as I was never commenting about your patrolling at all. Anyway, I am glad for the confirmation from Reaper Eternal that patrolling one's own edits is not technically possible. LadyofShalott 19:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The articles which I was 'believed' to have patrolled myself were the ones when I actually had the right, and were done automatically. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is not technically possible to mark your own page creations patrolled, and if you are autopatrolled, they will never be unpatrolled to begin with. The aforementioned log entry is due to the 'autopatrolled' flag. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that Reaper Eternal. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If a non-autopatrolled user X created an article Y and next day became an autopatrolled, does the article Y become patrolled?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not — I noticed that when I had autopatrol. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it mean then that one technically can patrol their own articles (I know you did not do it)?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. Only the new pages are automatically patrolled, that is all. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I am lost. I am an AP and I am doing NPP on a regular basis. I just go to the list of new articles, see which ones are non-patrolled ("yellow") and patrol them (usually editing first). If I would see my own unpatrolled article (which is not going to happen, since I have been an AP since august), what would technically prevent me from patrolling it in the same way?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is prevented, even if autopatrolled, or sysop, or 'crat or anything. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean I would not see this "Patrol this article" clickable link in the bottom right of the page if this is my own page?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You will see it, but you can't patrol it. See the notice you get here. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Fae

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

---

Moved from WP:ANI#User:Fae.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I know this user hacked at by a lot of people but, I've been impartial when it always happened. Today, an incident that happened at commons, was discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales where User:Fae has been very inappropriate making harsh statements at almost everything demonstrated here: [65], [66], [67] (Actually it's best if you look at the thread here)

Many users as evidenced in the thread complained about Fae's attitude and some even wondered why he hasn't been banned from Wikipedia.

This eventually led to the result of Fae getting banned from Jimmy's talk page.

I am sure that this is not the only time Fae has acted this way and is certainly not what is expected from an administrator. This repeatedly has demonstrated qualities an administrator should not possess. On top of that during their initial RfA, he failed to disclose his previous account, User:Ash (which there seems to be heavy speculation about by a vast amount of editors), which would have almost certainly caused that RfA to fail had it been known earlier. I am suggesting an Arbitration case be opened concerning User:Fae's ability of being a fit admin. Involved parties best recuse from this however they may comment. I am open to comments about this but I ask that fellow editors be constructive and civil about it.

I will notify all the users involved in this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the primary members involved. Others maybe notified too if need be.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I might add that User:Cyberpower678 did not notify Fae of this discussion (I've done so), did not sign it, and put in a structure for !voting before anyone has even commented (I've removed that). I, too, see no evidence of any of the assertions Cyberpower makes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You have give me time to notify users.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no opinion one way or the other, but for the record this is the diff about the talk page...request...by Jimmy Wales, not the diff linked to above. - SudoGhost 01:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)The diff was fixed. - SudoGhost 01:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I saw this much earlier today, and it looks like Jimmy has already handled it by asking them to stay off his talk page. I don't see a need to labor the issue here. This has already turned into a train wreck of bad diffs, bad formatting and strikes. Maybe we should just go do something else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  Beats the constant edit conflicts I keep getting when I try to correct what I wrote or respond. Boy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)There was only one diff wrong and the this thread is about whether Fae should face ArbCom or not. Everyone makes mistakes, especially me since I am half asleep at this point and pulled the wrong diff.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  I was mainly talking about Egg's participation more than anything, as far as the screws ups are concerned. But I also don't think it needs to be at ANI. Jimmy handled it. If Fae doesn't stay off his talk page, that would be different. AN might be a better choice that ANI if you just want a discussion, as the "incident" was already handled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Important for UK Wikipedians: I read the vid's description, and figured, since I'm in the Isle of Man if that is what I think it'll be it'll either be legal (possibly even encouraged if yer hubby's at sea!) or I would be disembowled next week. Figuring there was no chance of a prison sentance, I took the plunge. Anyway, it is definitely illegal in the UK to "possess" that video, which by current case law includes having it in your browser cache. I strongly recommend that no one based in the UK view it. Egg Centric 01:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion at Jimbo's page about The Good Old Naughty Days made it clear it had an "R18" rating, which I don't think is as illegal as you say. Wnt (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That was before the extreme pornography laws (mostly designed to be censor bdsm type stuff, based on a murder case where frankly the evidence agains the accused was extremely weak from what I can see - everything I have read about it makes me believe it was a miscarriage of justice (although I was not at court) and if he had "dunnit" it's hardly a reason to censor things for the rest of us </rant> which also happened to meak bestiality illegal, to the extent the CPS tried to prosecute someone for a film with fucking Tony the Tiger in it, going "this is grrrrrrrrrrreat". Admittedly it was thrown out/dismissed/overturned on appeal - can't remember which off the top of my head, but they FUCKING TRIED TO PROSECUTE THAT. If you think they'll leave that alone just cause it has a rating, good luck to you... Egg Centric 03:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If our article R18 certificate is wrong, please fix - it says that possession of R18 material is not illegal. I see about the Tony the Tiger prosecution [68] - it was dropped, but under the most ironic terms. The soundtrack indicated that a necessary element of thoughtcrime in the possession crime was not present! I am hoping that some court in Britain had some ability to uphold rights and put a stop to that more firmly, but I don't know... Wnt (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyhoo, clarification please?

Is this purely about Fae's conduct? If so I have to agree with Mr. Brown. It seems that this is primarily a meta issue (and I'll be the first person to say that meta is full of bastards, you should see what I got a month block for) while Fae's conduct on Jimbo's talk page, while regrettable, is basically between them and Jimbo and tbh unless Jimbo says that he wants to make something official, by my interpretation of the rules they can still post on his page. More interesting is whether any user may remove their comments from Jimbo's page on sight, and my personal opinion is that they could remove contributions to threads, but not threads started by fae or posts their-in. D U C Y? Egg Centric 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Ok, thank you Cyber. I'm still of the opinion that Jimmy has already handled the sitution, but taking it here is much better than ANI. I'm still a little vague as to the purpose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, now I see you are asking if Fae should be sent to ArbCom. My answer is no. A public spanking by Jimmy seems adequate punishment for the single "crime". At least Jimmy thought so. I noticed you were rather vague when saying "I am sure that this is not the only time Fae has acted this way" which isn't convincing without diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't care about calls for Fae's adminship were it not for the fact that some of the people who've been talking past him (names can be provided) have been equally, if not more so, unreasonable and belligerent. Much of this seems to stem from a few people who take an extreme position on BLP and Commons and attempt to ram their personal opinion on it into everything, screaming for people's heads if anyone dares to offer a different opinion; they're sometimes successful because a lot of people don't take the time to carefully check over their claims. Let's see how this plays out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying I was acting premature in opening this discussion?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's necessary (and incidentally, you are not one of the people I'm referencing above), but I'm persuadable. My initial impression isn't always right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I always try to be impartial about everything.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think you have yet provided enough information to support your claims, however. I'm assuming that could be fixed, and would recommend it. For instance, I've been around Fae a few times, but I avoid the BLP dept. and don't have an opinion on him one way or another. If you were looking for input from uninvolved persons, more diffs and detail would be needed. Otherwise, you tend to attract only those that have fixed opinions in the matter. I will have to just check in the morning and see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blade here. So far as I understand Fae's "crime" is saying "the bestiality video [argument] that Jayen466 has been spending his time promoting and shouting about, so often and on so many platforms." Well I know I wouldn't have watched the silly thing if he hadn't pointed it out at [69]. So I regard Fae's statement about that as factually accurate so far as I know (I know nothing about the e-mails, but I heard no dispute of them), and altogether appropriate. Whereas the complaint against him is VolunteerMarek's response "the bestiality video that Jayen466 has been spending his time promoting - What the fuck Fae, did you really just write that? As in, explicitly stating that another user is promoting bestiality videos? WHY. ARE. YOU. NOT. BANNED. FROM . THIS. PROJECT????? Come on Jimbo, it's about time for a little bit of common sense here. This really has reached Level: Insane." Now I must have an unimaginative definition of 'civility', because I found Fae's comment to be what I'd call "snarky", whereas the response ... well, suffice it to say that I am disappointed in Jimbo for seemingly accepting that response as A-OK, and appearing to agree with it. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I put no stock in Jimbo's opinions at this point. His views are very disconnected from those of the community, yet people still treat his word as gospel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to respect Jimbo for what he's accomplished, and for laying down many good principles. So I've tended to fall toward a more Dutch Revolt sort of political position; that Jimbo is the good and rightful monarch, whose ear has been bent by bad advisors. Also, I have to recognize that there are elements out there hostile to many aspects of Wikipedia's free-ranging pursuit of information, and that Jimbo often may find it politic to humor them to some extent. I only hope that by putting forward the appropriate opposing arguments, I might somehow help him to resist... still, as I said, in this case I am disappointed. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Put not your trust in princes... Prioryman (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of merits, the question you have to ask is what would arbcom say to the case you're considering submitting. Arbcom has already declined action regarding the RFA situation. Arbcom can be inconsistent, but they tend not to accept cases that are solely "conduct unbecoming" that don't involve any sort of tool usage. If they followed pattern they'd probably point you to RFC/U.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Cube lurker, can you point to the page where Arbcom declined action regarding the RFA situation, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble locating the exact conversation. I have recollection of this conversation happening, but I think only observed, so I don't have a good diff trail. It's possible though that I'm remembering wrongly, I should change my wording to "I think arbcom declined..."--13:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• My advice for Fae is to just focus on articles for a month or two, unwatch all the drama boards and just find a quiet part of the project to hang out in. Maybe try to get Soulforce or Cathedral of Hope up to good or featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  And to do the same on Commons--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with most of the discussion, but I have one question: would Fae be willing to stand for a recall/confirmation vote as an admin? In other words, if s/he was applying for adminship, what are the chances s/he would be elected? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There were two RFC/Us: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ. The first was initiated by User:Delicious carbuncle, highlighting problems with misuse of sources in BLPs, but was closed with "User has stopped editing Wikipedia. Delisted due to inactivity." When it became apparent that the user hadn't stopped editing, for even one day, but had simply changed his user name, Delicious carbuncle restarted the process under the user's new name.

Several issues were discussed in the second RFC/U.

• Ash/Fæ pretended to be retiring from Wikipedia and so avoided looming sanctions (a probable topic ban on BLPs).
• Ash/Fæ gave the false impression at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fæ that he had successfully gone through an RfC/U without sanctions - effectively a community endorsement.
• Many editors called for Ash/Fæ to resign and re-apply for adminship.
• Others called for him to voluntarily avoid BLPs, particularly those of people in the porn industry.
• Ash/Fæ chose to do neither, and has since taken on a senior role at Wikimedia UK.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap, I just realised how bizarre this is, how can a Wikimedia member be banned from Jimbo's talk page? Egg Centric 05:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, it's very misleading of you to omit the fact that many editors felt that the attacks on Fae were part of a campaign of harassment (per Russavia; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ#Outside view by Russavia) and that Fae had not misled anyone (per Hobit; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ#Outside view by Hobit). Each of these outside views attracted at least three times as much support as your own view. I didn't participate in the RfC/U myself but there was substantial evidence that Fae was indeed being targeted for a combination of factors - personal enmity, political sniping against Wikimedia UK, and outright homophobia. It's perhaps not surprising in the circumstances that the RfC/U was a complete mess and came to no consensus on any of the claims against Fae. Given that the community didn't agree with the proposition that Fae should stand for re-adminship, and that any such RFA would be hopelessly tainted by off-wiki activism, I can't see any good reason for making him stand for reconfirmation as an admin. There's no suggestion now or previously that he's misusing the tools and an RFA would be the mother of all drama-fests. But I do agree that Fae would be well advised to keep a lower profile going forward. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Those two views you mentioned did get more !votes than mine, true. But the most endorsed view was that from Themfromspace:

"Ash quit under a cloud, with an active user RFC containing serious allegations about reliable sources and BLPs. If Fae really is Ash, ArbCom erred greatly in letting him stand for adminship without disclosing his past account to the community. With full transparency, its very likely the RfA wouldn't have passed."

— Themfromspace

It isn't a question of feeling, Prioryman. Fæ said at his RfA that he'd changed his name "after" an FfC/U (rather than during). That, coupled with his declaration that the former account had no blocks or sanctions, is a clear mischaracterisation of his standing and the circumstances under which he abandoned that name. I don't know if he intended to mislead. I do know that he did mislead. Seriously. When it became very apparent during the RfC/U that he had significantly misled at least some !voters at his RfA regarding his previous standing, the responsible thing to do then would have been to ask for reconfirmation.

Regarding animosity toward Fæ, I have none. I have found him to be pleasant, intelligent and helpful in the only direct encounter we've had. I'm not a homophobe, and I'm not a prude. The only issue I have with him is he ignored the very reasonable expectation that he should ask for reconfirmation and instead simply impugned the motives of the editor who drew attention to the facts.

Perhaps there is an evil campaign against him - I haven't a clue. But for our purposes here it is irrelevant. I am part of no campaign against Fæ. Though his misleading at the RfA may have been inadvertent, his refusal to acknowledge the problem and respond appropriately when it became clear that he had misled was deliberate. If this meets the behaviour standards of the admin corps, so be it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Considering that most of Fae's responses are in themselves responses to a harassment campaign being conducted both on and off-wiki (through the likes of Wikipedia Review, though now it's moved to Wikipediocracy more). I mean, there is currently a thread in the main section discussion on Wikipediocracy about Fae, where the users there are just going back and forth insulting him. And since a number of those users are also editors on-wiki, his reactions aren't really that surprising. Silverseren^C 08:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as a key element here. The attacks on Fae are crazy to me on many levels. What is going on with these people's lives that directing so much anger at someone online they've likely never even met seems like the best way to spend their time? Given Fae's involvement on non-enWP specific projects, I agree that a low profile on enWP drama boards for at least a few weeks might help move things forward. I generally try to stay far away from them - but in this case feel that the attacks on Fae are reaching a bizarre level. However, if the underlying homophobia, sexphobia and cyber-bullying against him continues, it seems unlikely he will, or should be expected to, take it all in silence. Jumping on each instance where he responds, and not going after instigators and trolls, is likely a waste of everyone's time - and certainly not for ArbCom. IMHO, Jimbo's unfortunate reaction seems more than enough of a response for the situation being discussed here. --Varnent (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear in the Jimbo discussion that Fae was being attacked by Wikipediocracy members, who were explicitly involved in that discussion, such as Volunteer Marek, who is one of the more main proponents attacking him. Not to mention Youreallycan, Jayen, and Cla. Silverseren^C 19:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea what happens off-wiki and on Commons, but that kind of things requires an administrative recall and confirmation because our administrators suppose to be the most trusted members of the community, and there is a serious problem out there if he/she is not trusted even by the Founder.My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Um, most of us don't care what the founder thinks and, likely, aren't "trusted" by him. Jimbo's response is rather irrelevant. Silverseren^C 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Um, you don't care what the founder thinks but many many users do. Your claim that his opinion is "irrelevant" beggars belief.Youreallycan 19:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should rephrase that. His opinion counts just as much as any other editor, per his own statements of how he wants us to treat him. Silverseren^C 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem is an interesting read on this subject. FWIW, I like Jimbo, but the man gets things wrong sometimes--just like everyone else. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, we all get it wrong sometimes - however some few people are inspirational and have tremendous creativity - and that is what created and still drives the project and we should/can and do take continued guidance from that source - The simple fact of asking the user not to post on his talkpage is pretty uncontroversial as far as it goes, pretty standard procedure. Youreallycan 19:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess I agree re: continued guidance etc. It's certainly worth respecting his wishes about his talk page, which occupies a sort of special role here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• It also works both ways and in future any discussion of Fae's contributions should be closed down on Jimmy's talkpage as he is no longer able to respond there, which will help to reduce dispute/tension for the User. - I think this thread would be better closed as well. Youreallycan 20:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Going off of what I am reading, and getting mixed answers about Fae and his conduct. Therefore I have made a proposals subthread where we can make proposals regarding the course of action against User:Fae. Anyone is allowed to make a proposal but they should be logical, reasonable, and on topic. If non of the proposals pass, this matter will be closed with no action taken against Fae however, if a proposal(s) passes, this thread and discussion will remain open until proposal has been carried out. I have 2 proposals which anyone is welcome to vote on. I will remain neutral on this and not vote on any proposal.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Condition: User:Fae is requested and required to submit themselves to a reconfirmation RfA. The user must disclose any previous accounts, sanctions, or possibly discussed sanctions. The community will then determine if Fae should remain a sysop or not. If the RfA fails, Fae will be desysopped. Fae is however, able to then submit themselves to another RfA to regain the bit at his discretion. Should User:Fae fail to open an RfA within 2 weeks, one will be opened for him.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Proposal 2

Condition: User:Fae is to undergo the process of arbitration by the arbitration committee where they will decide what to do with Fae.

I am aware that this proposal will most likely not pass but, input is welcomed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• You don't need a proposal to open an ArbCom case. You just do it, and they accept or not. (I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging this action; I just think a proposal about it is not useful.) LadyofShalott 20:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Cyberpower, I think ArbCom has stated that there needs to be another RfC on Fae before they intervene. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to the page, Cla68? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

Clerks, admins & CUs needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Kindly request from a 'crat

Hi all. I'm going to be excruciatingly busy this summer in real life. I'm not going anywhere, but I won't be able to give the project the focus I've been able to do over the last year. I'm here because WP:CHUU and WP:CHUS are still regularly backed up and people keep turning up at my userpage because they see I'm the most active person doing renames and want to know why I haven't gotten to their rename yet. I'm asking if people who think they are ready for RFB could please consider getting around to it so that they're in place for the summer. I'm glad to see we have one RFB currently running, but really think we could use at least a couple more crats to spread the work around fairly. If people are interested and want me to look over their backgrounds, I'm going to not be insanely busy for the next two weeks. As always, my email inbox is also open. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Nirzhorshovon

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.

---

• Nirzhorshovon (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Just wanted to put this new user on others' radar. (Noted it at AN/I too.) They seem to be confused about editing. - jc37 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Request to redirect link

 Done The Slackers (Band) [70] to The Slackers [71]]

1. REDIRECT [[72]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedlesAndPins (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama Talk Page Discussions

This was obvious block evasion. I've blocked the IP account, and am collapsing this thread (which mainly comprised the block evader attacking various editors) per WP:DENY. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

These three users were working in unison to remove reasonable talk page discussions within hours of the proposals, even though said proposals included dozens of prominent sources about a major, newsworthy issue surrounding Barack Obama. Frank (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Wikidemon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) DD2K (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) I proposed mention in the Obama article of the Born Alive controversy surrounding Barack Obama recently raised by Newt Gingrich and reported in the news, since it had also played a major role in the 2004 and 2008 elections when it was raised by 4 different opponents of Obama's, Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. I provided some sources for this claim, but the thread was closed 6 hours after it was made by User:Safiel because it was "POV" (which isn't even a valid excuse according to WP guidelines if I've read correctly).[73] However, I sought to act in good faith and reasonably provide dozens more sources showing this is a major issue in the press, and thus ought to merit at least a few words of reference in the article given that from 2004-2012 it's been one of the most-reported on subjects concerning Barack Obama. I also responded to an User:Scjessey claim that he hadn't heard of the issue in Europe by pointing out this is a U.S. president and that the sourcing clearly is sufficient, by providing over 40 major sources showing this has been a prominent subject in the news, per Wikipedia's policy of "follow the sources".[74] DD2K then reverted a reasonable, constructive post with over 40 major sources, just 14 minutes afterward, because it was a "POV thread" - again, not even a valid excuse per WP guidelines, since everyone has a point of view and all major views are just supposed to presented fairly with regards to sources.[75] I reverted the edits a 2nd time and began a new thread, "Sahiel/DD2K Attempt to Silence Discussion of Controversies and Start Edit War", asking why reasonable edits are being reverted which provide dozens of major sources, and pointing out, in detail, how multiple WP policies are being violated by the reverters, including NPOV, WP:OWN, Don't Revert solely due to 'no consensus', WP:BLP, WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, and WP:Fringe.[76] My frustration occurred because another discussion, "Immediate hatting/closure of criticism", by User:William Jockusch, showed this was being done with apparent bias by the same editors. Jockusch's words rang true with what I was experiencing when he said, "I made several mildly critical edits. Most were reverted within the hour. I also removed the non-NPOV employment graph. Again it was quickly reverted. So I did make constructive edits, and they were reverted, with a request to bring up the issues in talk. So I made a lengthy and constructive post about it in talk, and that was hatted with an inappropriate sarcastic comment from the administrator."[77] Frank then began an inexcusable edit war to try and remove the mere mention on the talk page of a major controversy surrounding Obama, that was prominent in the news for 8 years, and was sourced with 40+ citations. Not only did he remove the original edits with the 40+ sources, but the new section asking why the edits were inappropriate.[78] I reverted Frank's vandalism and pointed out with a new comment how well-sourced and prominent the sources and issue in question were, and pointedly stating there is no reason for reverting the edits.[79] Frank edit warred twice more while never giving a single explanation for why the content was inappropriate.[80] User:Reaper Eternal then banned me for edit warring and completely ignored the unreasonable and unexplained reversions of well-sourced, concise, and constructive edits by both Frank and DD2K. When the 24-hour ban expired, I made a new thread ("No Mention of Controversy?") asking why the edits were reverted. I emphasized the issue had been brought up in 3 different elections now as a major issue and provided the 40+ sources again. User:HiLo48, like Scjessey, said he wasn't American and hadn't heard of the controversy, so I replied to him (I really don't understand why so many non-American editors are allowed to determine consensus on the page that material isn't prominent when they aren't even in America to know whether it is prominent). I also pointed out in William Jockusch's thread that Scjessey's attacks on his edits as "POV" didn't make much sense given that Scjessey's logs show history edit warring on the Obama and Global Warming pages, suggesting he himself has a "POV".[81][82] Wikidemon then closed the William Jockusch thread and deleted my comment there.[83] He then closed my "No Mention of Controversy" with hat tags because it was according to the hat description, "repeat proposal, already rejected" - which completely ignores that it was rejected within hours of being proposed, the discussion closed before any discussion could occur, and no reasons were ever given for why it was closed other than that it was "POV" (which it's not - the issue has been prominent and is well sourced so to follow the sources requires no "POV").[84] I then made a 4th thread, "No Discussion of Controversy?", asking why Wikidemon was reverting all these threads, to see if they would at least give a reason finally for the reversions. "Why is Wikidemon hiding all conversations mentioning the Born Alive controversy? The discussion was valid and addressed a major controversy dealing with major sources. Why is he afraid to let it even be discussed? There are 40+ sources here and both times it's been brought up for discussion it's been closed within hours, rather than being allowed consideration. Seems like editors here are dishonestly trying to prevent it from even being discussed, rather than following the sources. How is this honest or objective, refusing to let a seriously sourced issue even be shown on the Talk Page for more than an hour? How can it be expected any consensus will be reached when subject proposals are hidden within hours of their being brought up? I brought it up a few days ago, promptly provided 40+ sources, and the discussion was instantly deleted. When I tried to restore it, I was accused of 'edit warring'. Seems like no matter how well sourced an article proposal is, if the biased politics of a few users here result in their disliking of its mention, they will delete and hide the discussion within hours of it being mentioned. Then, if anyone reverts their unreasonable censorship of discussion, they get banned for 'edit warring'. How are these people (Wikidemon, Frank, and DD2k) not yet banned if Wikipedia is as fair and objective as it claims?"[85] Wikidemon then, rather than explain why he was making all these deletions, changed my section title to "Continuing" below the last thread (which he'd hidden) and asked for someone to delete the section.[86] I asked Wikidemon why he wanted the article deleted, and on what grounds? I also questioned why he changed my section title in violation of the WP:Talk rule (which he'd just cited) against changing other's comments. Wikidemon just said "Not worth taking that bait. Let's keep the talk page productive, folks." and wouldn't address this.[87] I then pointed out, "Said the guy who was one of several to have constructive conversations closed within hours dealing with dozens of major news sources showing an issue is not being mentioned on this page that clearly has both prominence and sourcing." I also noted that a search of the arbitration rulings for an Obama case revealed Wikidemon previously was disciplined back in 2009 for edit warring and tag-teaming (with User:Sceptre) to remove reasonable edits, and that history seemingly was repeating itself.[88] DD2K then deleted both new sections 4 minutes later.[89] I re-added both sections removed by DD2K (did not remove hab tags) with a new thread, "Another Edit Warring Attempt", calling attention to the attempts by DD2K to start edit wars and get people banned.[90] Frank then reverted my edits and banned me for 3 days. He also hid another discussed proposal on Jeremiah Wright because it was "not reliably sourced" ignoring that mine had been better sourced than likely any other proposal in the article's history, and had not been allowed discussion for even a single day without edit warring attempts and constant discussion closings and deletions.[91] I'm sorry, but there simply is no way to "assume good faith" in the face of such blatant biased censorship. A ring of editors just hides and deletes conversations without ever giving any justification for their actions when asked to explain themselves, throws out ridiculous claims of others being "POV", and play musical chairs using their same inner circle to remove highly-sourced and reasonable discussions of material relevant to the Barack Obama article. There is no reason this should be allowed to continue like it is by Wikipedia. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Seen this movie before. Will be interesting to see how wikipedia's "editorial mechanisms" handle this one four years later. Here's a hint: User:BryanFromPalatine.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC) For all the edit-warring reversions they made, they don't have a single one that's defensible and justifiable. The sourcing was beyond reproach. All I asked for was a few words of mention of the controversy in the article. Rather than address the sources or issue they just hid and deleted the conversations within hours and often minutes of the posts being made. That a group of users from England is allowed to say something isn't prominent when it has over 40 major sources, because it wasn't as widely reported on in Europe, is ridiculous. They shouldn't be allowed on the talk page if they're going to judge the prominence of a U.S. president's controversies by European reporting, and edit war to silence those who simply try to discuss the issues in a blatant attempt to get reasonable editors banned. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC) My goodness, a very familiar account. But not the one suggested already. It is Jzyehoshua. See this. This is another obvious attempt by this user to insert this "born alive" stuff into the BLP article and insinuate that Obama is a baby killer. This edit mirrors the anon IPs attempt to include this. Not to mention the same exact styles, including flooding pages and the cabal accusations. I tried to start a SPI case, but have not had any real responses. This seems about as obvious a Duck as can be. Couldn't get any simpler. The user was topic banned from Obama articles, and then indeffed blocked when they refused to acknowledge the topic ban and continued to push this on the Obama pages. Dave Dial (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (after ec). ::: Meh, on second thought this is probably User:Jzyehoshua given the shared interest in young earth creationism, [92] and [93] and Obama. [94]. The "bryan" sockfarm didn't seem particularly interested in religion. Not that any of this matters of course. An inexhaustible supply of moles to whack.Bali ultimate (talk) I would imagine this controversy has been brought up multiple times in the past, given how well it's been reported on. However much you might like to switch the subject, the level of bias and abuse on the Barack Obama page remains irrefutable. It seems you would like to avoid the subject of clear censorship on the page that has just been decisively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone paying attention. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Also, DD2K/Dave Dial, I notice you changed your signature's appearance from what it was on the talk page discussions earlier (DD2K). Very interesting. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC) WP:DFTT --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Your policy only discusses vandalism that I can see. How did I ever engage in vandalism on the Barack Obama talk page to merit discussion closings and deletions? Seems like you are setting up a straw man that doesn't actually fit the case at hand and making inferences about vandalism that you can't prove. I suppose it was your discussions with Scjessey that brought you here?[95] --98.220.198.49 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Last block was 72 hours. Make it a week this time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC) At the risk of being repetitive, I will point out that the user was warned and then warned again about disruptive editing before any blocks occurred. Note that second link shows no fewer than SIX editors describing the behavior as being against policy and consensus. Indeed, only three of those six are even mentioned here in this thread. There is no conspiracy, and there is no censorship; the user is simply editing against policy and refuses to acknowledge it. Some highly cynical people will say that those two warnings were cover for me to block later; sorry if that is the impression but ample warning was given, and another admin made the first block independently, so I don't see it as cover at all. Rather, those messages were to encourage genuine discussion within policy, and my later block was an acknowledgment that the result was not forthcoming and therefore was made to prevent disruption to the project. Unfortunate that the point still was not taken and this thread has been opened, but that happens and we move on. As a further note, I have not bothered to engage in this matter as a CU; I see the tag and the references to Jzyehoshua but have declined to even consider the matter since we are dealing with an IP address anyway. That's not a knock against IP editors; a CU simply would not make a direct connection between an IP address and an editor's account.  Frank  |  talk  17:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Warnings that were made just half an hour before the block occurred. You made those warnings less than an hour before the block occurred, having probably already asked Eternal Reaper to ban, just so you could say this now. You were specifically asked in the talk page discussions to explain how the edits were inappropriate and refused to do so or address the extensive sourcing or issue, choosing instead to simply hide and delete the discussion in a display of heavy-handed censorship. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC) What is very difficult for you to explain is why you deleted not only the original, well-sourced proposals, but later sections asking for explanation of why the edits were inappropriate, and how they violated Wikipedia guidelines. You deleted these sections, namely "Sahiel/DD2K Attempt to Silence Discussion of Controversies and Start Edit War"[96][97][98] and "No Discussion of Controversy?".[99] If you were really just objecting to the proposals themselves, you should have at least allowed discussion on why the content was inappropriate, yet never once did you give a single explanation on the Talk page. You simply removed my questions asking why the proposals were inappropriate even for mentioning on the Talk page discussion, and refused to allow any public discussion whatsoever. You put up a good talk when there are witnesses around but you showed at the time how heavy-handed you truly are. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC) You also ignore that I replied to your warning[100] and explained myself. Rather than explaining your justification you simply had me banned via Eternal Reaper, and refused to give any explanation or communication whatsoever. You had SIX DAYS since then to respond, either on my Talk page or on the Obama Talk page, and explain why the edits were inappropriate. You didn't make one single effort. Not one. If your intention was truly honest communication that should not have occurred, and indicates your warnings were simply to cover your butt prior to later AN/I examination. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC) It doesn't really matter how much time passed between the warning and the block, as long it's at least say, nek minnit one minute before you're blocked. What matters more is whether you've continued the behaviour after a warning. I don't think your IP changed, so you should have seen the 'new messages' before you edited. If you ignored this, you need to learn to check it out particularly if you're doing things liable to lead to you being blocked (or if you don't know what does). In any case, even if you did ignore the 'new messages' so weren't aware you were liable to be blocked, it's a moot point. Blocks are meant to be preventative. If people have tried warning you but you didn't bother to read the warnings, blocking you next so you do get the message is a reasonable next step. Of course, if you did get the message, there's absolutely no reason why we should care you if it wasn't much time before you were blocked. If anything, it's worse since it's so fresh from a warning you're continuing the behaviour. Now if you were blocked without continuing the behaviour, then that's unfortunate but sometimes if behaviour is bad enough, blocks may be necessary to ensure they stop. You can of course ask for an unblock, as you always can, once you've understood what you did wrong and aren't going to do it again. Complaining about not being given enough warning doesn't tend to work very well. Since you've been blocked twice, I don't really get why you're complaining about not being given enough warning anyway. The first block should have been a big clue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. It's good to see uninvolved editors contributing to the conversation here. From my point of view though, there was no reasonable explanation for reverting these threads. I responded to the warning and on the Obama talk page asking why the reversions were made and no replies were given, the threads were just shut down. Don't you think that's just a little concerning, that discussion of why mass deletions and conversation hiding are occurring is not allowed to exist? All I wanted was an explanation for why the material was being reverted, and even threads on this weren't allowed, but just got hidden or deleted within minutes. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Comment Since my name was brought up in this discussion. I closed one thread at Talk:Barack Obama that expressed a point of view, but did NOT specifically discuss how to improve the article. Had there been specific suggestions in that thread, I would have left it open. I have closed threads on numerous topics in the past when it appears that if violates WP:NOTAFORUM. I also made some other edits on that page of a purely talk page maintenance nature. Since apparently I had only one edit that the IP objected to, not even sure why my name was mentioned here. Safiel (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I realize you may not have been involved to the extent Frank, Wikidemon, and DD2K were, and the initial reversion may have been due to an initial impression, as it was made before I provided 40+ sources and asked for explanation of why the content was inappropriate. You were mentioned simply as part of the timeline, and I am unclear on the guidelines of who should be alerted in an AN/I dispute (it just says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" and what is meant by 'subject' I'm not sure), so I simply told everyone who was mentioned at all in the discussion (except Sceptre whose talk page can't be edited). I ultimately decided the rule was there to ensure nobody was talked about behind their backs, even if not specifically one of the main individuals criticized/focused on, so I just messaged you and everyone else I'd mentioned, whether positively, negatively, or just in passing. Without more clarification, I couldn't be sure given the rule's vagueness - however, this dispute deals solely with inappropriate actions by Frank, Wikidemon, and DD2K. As for specific suggestions, I didn't provide them at the time because I wanted to establish first that this was a major controversy well sourced and prominently reported on. I was willing to work with editors on finding even a minor way to mention the controversy once it became accepted how substantial the sources were, and thought by not providing a specific proposal there would be more chance of compromise and consensus.[101] --98.220.198.49 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I will say that although I am new here, I didn't and still don't see any justification for the hatting of my post. It discussed the global lack of balance and NPOV of the article. If you look at WP:Balance and [[WP::NPOV]], there is nothing that says you can't discuss that. When I raised the issue on DD2K's talk page, he simply accused me of distortion the policies, without saying how I was allegedly distorting or what the alleged distortion consisted of. I don't know if he had a justification for that or not. If he did, he has never explained it to me -- merely said that my accusations were "misplaced" and gave the impression that my complaint was not worth his time. It all felt very heavy handed.William Jockusch (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC) There still has not been a single explanation for why the hatting and deletions occurred that I can see. Despite days of edit warring by the tendentious users Frank, Wikidemon, and DD2K, there still remains no explanation for why the edit warring was performed. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 98 IP account Could someone please close the above discussion per WP:DENY or move it to the appropriate WP:SPI page? Let's deal with disruption from tendentious / suspicious / partisan /IP accounts via established article probation and socking protocol, and not let them game the process tie up legitimate, productive editors. These don't seem to be new accounts. If they aren't, they're socking. In the unlikely change they are, or that some actual newbie is incited by the socks to make the same case, they need to step back and take some time to learn what our encyclopedia is and how it works before they launch broadsides against our most prominent articles and the editing community that maintains them. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)n Also, could some uninvolved admin make this edit[102] and generally remove the IP's contributions from this page? I really don't appreciate getting stalked by a sock account. The longer they're here, the more of a mess they're making of the active discussions. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Discussion 1st reply to original Wikidemon post: Pretty hard to learn about Wikipedia when editors like yourself and Frank just close any discussion of proposals without giving so much as a single explanation for why the material was inappropriate. Clearly you are intent on censoring so much as the discussion of material controversial to Obama, even when said material has backing from dozens of major news sources. If discussion were at least allowed to occur on the Talk:Barack Obama page then I would have sought to resolve this through individual conversation but the obvious censorship there left me no other alternative. You still have not given an explanation for the repeated deletions, edit warring, and thread closings you made. You want this thread closed while never explaining yourself at all. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 2nd reply to later Wikidemon edits: I never 'stalked' you, I provided a constructive edit on the Talk:Barack Obama page that you, Frank, and DD2K reverted despite its impartial tone and use of 40+ major sources. You refused to confront the sources or address the subject matter and simply sought to heavy-handedly silence the conversation through hat tags and deletions. This allegation of 'stalking' is ridiculous since I made just one addition to your talk page, and that was to notify you of this discussion per WP policy. [103] A much better argument is that you stalked me by reverting reasonable edits without giving any kind of explanation on the Talk:Barack Obama page.--98.220.198.49 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 3rd reply to Wikidemon formatting changes: I won't revert your change of the discussion format by moving my replies into this Discussion subsection. Maybe this is the typical format for the AN/I threads, to not allow other people's comments outside of a discussion area, I'm not involved with these that much. You still refuse to address the simple question of why you reverted reasonable edits in the first place though. Clearly your edits are indefensible and your only resort is to keep trying to switch the subject with this 'sock' nonsense. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I was taken here by the IP, and I stand by my block—it was completely valid given the violation of 3RR. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC) You ignored that Frank started the edit warring and also exceeded the 3RR policy, yet focused on me. Why is that? Both Wikidemon and Frank reverted my material more than 3 times, yet were not given so much as a warning. Furthermore, I said in my edit summaries that I was reverting Frank's edits because they were vandalism[104][105], and according to the WP:3RR policy "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring." The vandalism included "Abuse of tags". There still is no explanation for the deletions and hab usage by Frank, Wikidemon, and DD2K. Therefore, my edits were not edit warring but reversion of obvious vandalism by the trio. And your ban was thus unjustified for banning the wrong side when you should have banned Frank. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Those who have not yet read User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior should do so, as it contains much wisdom. The very first of those observations is confirmed yet again. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Template_talk:Cleanup#Red_warning_for_new_instances

It is quite urgent as it will cause {{Cleanup}} to turn into large red warning if no reason supplied (instead of the cleanup tag) if it was placed after April 2012. As it it would be great to implement this as Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from May 2012 is empty. (support for this change is listed in linked section) Bulwersator (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike

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 really, really do not like making this proposal. If anyone checks the records, they will in fact see that I have historically been one of the few editors who has been somewhat on DeknMike's side. But the editor has a fairly long history of trying to get the content of the main Messianic Judaism article to support some internal positions of the group, specifically that they are older than independent sources seem to support. User:Jayjg has been most heavily involved in this, trying to get DeknMike to produce independent reliable sources that would support his contentions. I've tried to find such sources myself. So far as I had been able to see from the databanks I checked or the independent reliable published sources, the position is not supported. I and others have also tried to reason with DeknMike, to no apparent avail.

In this section, Jayjg indicates much of DeknMike's problematic behavior to that date. A check of the most recent article talk page comments would indicate that the problematic behavior of DeknMike hasn't changed. He misrepresents sources, emphasizes non-independent sources, and otherwise engages in disruptive behavior.

Although I am personally somewhat sympathetic to DeknMike's positions, as is apparent from some of my own comments, I have to say enough is enough.

I would request that DeknMike be banned from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well. There is not yet an article History of Messianic Judaism so far as I can see, but I would not rule out the possibility of such a page being created and possibly being subject to the same problems. Other related pages might also be subject to the same treatment if the editor is banned from only the main article.

I will myself continue to check the independent reliable sources to which I have access, and, if any of them do ever provide independent support for the MJ's positions, trust me, I will let everyone know on the article talk page. But none of us have the time to spend dealing with the problematic behavior which does not seem to be likely to stop without action of this sort. Based on the lack of existence of an article on the MJs history, I guess I would have to support at least a ban on the main Messianic Judaism article, and possibly on any yet-to-be-created article on the history of Messianic Judaism. But I am not sure that material might not be added to other related articles. On that basis, much as I dislike it, I think that a topic ban is possibly the option that would create the least trouble for others, and on that basis am proposing such a ban, although I would not necessarily object to more focused bans if such are proposed by others, and will try to comment on such . John Carter (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, please be more specific about the latitude of the proposed ban — either you need to list all of the pages from which you're asking him to be banned, or a description of the type of pages (e.g. "All pages dealing with the history of Messianic Judaism") from which you're asking him to be banned. If we enact a ban with "possibly related Messianic Judaism pages", there's too much latitude for him to claim that he's not editing a related page and for his opponents to claim that he was editing a related page. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Undedrstood. At this point, I propose the ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed. If a relevant extant article, like History of Messianic Judaism, already existed, I might consider limiting the scope of the ban to a few specific extant pages, but the present state of the content makes that a bit problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, et al have repeatedly stated their opinion that Messianic Judaism 'arose' in the 1960s. The word 'arose' is particularly troubling - what does it mean? Stood up/started? Emerged from the shadows? The sources used don't say. Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century...he tension between the Messianic Jewish movement and the Hebrew Christian movement had always been present. After the inception of the HCAA in 1915 Again, Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s... These external sources have been on the page for some time. What is 'disruptive' about citing the sources already on the page to say what they say? Except that I refuse to be bullied into ignoring true and reputable sources? I have admitted many times that the name was not mainstream in the US before 1967, and that it has seen significant growth since then (arose?). I have presented many sources that say the movement existed outside the US before the 60s, but the others in this conversation will not consider any sources they don't agree with or that says anything but their stated notion. I myself am not Messianic, though I attended their services in several cities, and have talked with leaders in the movement. I am an outsider trying to make sense of ALL the literature, not just the sources that agree with the opinions I held before the research began.--DeknMike (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe a more accurate and less self-serving comment would be more along the lines of "you insist on indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the basis for including material which does not meet basic wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the more obvious recent examples is to be found at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Jerusalem Council as source, in which you appear to take the position that because a self-published source makes a declaration about a specific group within the broad field of Messianic Judaism, that statement is true of Messianic Judaism as a whole. Such a position is not only contrary to policy, but actually even contrary to basic logic. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(Pesky non-admin intruder again ...) Comment: is this just another US-centric problem? Pesky (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Messianic Judaism started in the US and remains overwhelmingly a US-based movement. Zad68 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support a general topic ban for DeknMike for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages. Reasoning:

• I was going to type up a long and detailed history of the issue, but it really has already been laid out pretty well here: Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. The basic issue is a very long history of civil (well mostly civil anyway) POV push. The description at Wikipedia:CIVILPOV fits the situation perfectly.
• The civil POV push is built on consistent (and sometimes sneaky) misrepresentation of sources. The editors at Messianic Judaism no longer have any faith or trust in DeknMike, and for good cause. Every one of his edits now is viewed with suspicion, and requires us to get him to show us the full text of the source he is trying to use, in context. Almost invariably, the source does not support his edit. This is really appalling.

• Here is just the latest example of misrepresentation of sources: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Another_source_misrepresentation_.2F_inaccurate_edit_summary.3F. The edit summary doesn't cover the whole edit, and the edit doesn't match what the source says. This misrepresentation of the source sat in the article for several days before somebody noticed.
• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_21#Deleting_reliably_sourced_accurate_material_again, there are more examples of sneakiness, where Mike was using the minor edit button to try to slip in significant content changes to the article. (He has since stopped trying to use the Minor button in this way.)
• More examples of misrepresentation of sources from the archives:

• DeknMike inserted the following text into the article:

In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at a chapel in East London. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.

What the source actually says, in the chapter on "Hebrew Christianity," is

On 9 September 1813 a group of 41 Jewish Christians established the Beni Abraham association at Jews' Chapel. These Jewish Christians met for prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening.

Note, nothing about it being "the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus" or "the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations".

• In this thread Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_20#Misrepresenting_sources_again, from over a year ago, DeknMike is trying to do the exact thing as he's doing in the latest example, so clearly, this is a long-term, protracted problem that is still continuing through today.

• The Messianic Judaism article is itself in pretty bad shape. It used to be a good article but quickly fell apart. I think it has the potential to be restored to Good status, but I see DeknMike as an impassible obstacle to improving the article.
• Attempts by John Carter to encourage or mentor DeknMike in improving the article in areas other than history consistently fall on deaf ears.
• I have had, occasionally, some productive interaction with DeknMike on the Talk pages of the Messianic Judaism article, see for example Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_22#Non-summary_statement_in_Lede where we actually worked together and came to an agreement on a change to the lead, which still stands today. Although I've felt I've been on the receiving end of some personal attacks from Mike, honestly they aren't that far out of line from how lots of other editors I've seen behave on Wikipedia. For these reasons, I am proposing not to include Talk pages in the topic ban.

Zad68 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. Zad, how would you define the phrase "Jewish Christians?" Pesky (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the article Jewish Christian does a reasonable job of addressing that question. However, I cannot see how it is acceptable according to policies and guidelines, including WP:SYNTH, for any editor to instantly assume that any "Jewish Christians" must necessarily be among those described as being within the group Messianic Judaism. There are and have been other groups and individuals prior to modern Messianic Judaism who have been described as Jewish Christians. If we were to accept that argument as valid, we might just as easily call them Cerinthians, Ebionites, Elcesaites, Essenes, Nazarenes, Nazoreans, or Saint Thomas Christians, or followers of Antinomianism, Marcionism, or any number of other names that have been applied over the years to individuals who have been roughly described as "Jewish Christians." John Carter (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should avoid getting into a content debate here, this is about editor behavior. If we find one of the examples I have listed questionable, I'll provide a different one. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• [non-admin observer comment]. I thought it might end up here. I've pretty much stopped watching the page (or rather stopped bothering to click through to follow the daily edit summaries) so my comment has little recent value, but might provide some background. Firstly, John, there is a history page, Hebrew Christian movement, which has the same editors but gets less traffic - partly I suppose because it mainly represents the more "assimiliation" minded and Gentile-funded Victorian Jewish missions. It also contains the same 9 August 2011 edit as Zad68 points about above as OR that the 41 member 1813 Hebrew Christian congregation in London was the "first" - which I can't see how is a problem on a content level as putting [1813 "Hebrew Congregation"] into Google Books immediately pulls out 3 sources supporting that this (correctly r not) in sources is regarded as the "first" (since two of the 3 sources - Stan Telchin & Rich Robinson are anti-MJ Evangelical works I'm assuming they aren't internal sources). The reason I mention that is that if that's the worst example of DeknMike's OR, and we have to go back to August 2011 to find it, then how come it's supported in Google Books? ......that said, the issue here isn't content so much as constantly pushing edits and pushing with a slant - which usually get reverted. I initially thought Jayjg was being too picky in some of the edits being blocked, but have come round to see that in almost every one of DeknMike's edit a sourceable factoid is being accompanied by a tail with distinct POV/OR characteristics, meaning both the sourced factoid and the tail get reverted. In addition John Carter - who is evidently neutral if not vaguely favourable - has offered DeknMike the opportunity to pass edits through him first. I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something. What I personally would suggest is that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article, and others commit to check every week or so, with more leisure than now. There's also another potential issue with a topic ban - POV concerns aside I'm not sure that it's healthy for en.wp to ban the only active User of a particular religious group from editing his/her religious group's article. Particularly as MJs are a group, like JWs?, to which most of their religious cousins range from suspicious to hostile. That may be a consideration outside AN scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that we pretty much banned every western Falun Gong practicioner from that content some time ago, for POV pushing, so there is precedent for that. But I would think that only two months would be far too inadequate. Procedurally, there have been indefinite bans from a topic in the past, which are reviewed later and ended. That would probably be the best way to go here. And I do think, maybe, allowing him perhaps to leave notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish Christianity, for anyone to see, might be sufficient for him to propose new edits. If, however, DeknMike were to agree to a self-imposed topic ban, I would probably agree to that. If he would agree to that. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe a bit more listening to each other, in a more relaxed atmosphere, might be good. I don;t think a self-imposed topic ban is the way to go about that, personally, but if it's the only thing that works for you, he may have no option. Looking at the above information, though, I'd like people to think about "Ariel ("Judaism and Christianity Unite! The Unique Culture of Messianic Judaism") says When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s..." and "Rausch (Christian Century, Sep 82) says I found a prevalent belief that they had coined the term 'Messianic Judaism.' Others thought that the term had originated within the past ten or 20 years. Most of their opponents also agreed that this was so. In fact, both the term “Messianic Judaism” and the frustration with the movement go back to the 19th century" and see if they can understand why DeknMike believes that saying it arose in the 1960's is wrong. See if you can discuss this one carefully with each other, looking to understand the "other side's" reasoning. Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead? Pesky (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Point of order. Zad68 correctly stated the article is within the category 'formerly Good Articles', but including it in a discussion about me might lead some to conclude is was delisted BECAUSE of me. In fact, it was delisted in 2008 [[106]] and I didn't join the conversation until March of 2010 [[107]]. To say otherwise misrepresents the issues even more.--DeknMike (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: DeknMike is correct on the dates of the article's delisting and the start of his involvement editing it, and it was not my intention to imply that his editing caused the de-listing. My point was that DeknMike's involvement at the article was an impediment to its return to Good status. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

DeknMike, I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". There was just something (well, several somethings) about it which rang warning bells for me. I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. I think there's far more to this than meets the eye, and that what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it. I'm not saying that that is intentional (though of course there's always the possibility that it may be), just that these things happen. I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first. Pesky (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether I would qualify under the terms of TPC above, but I had gone through the sources available to me on EBSCOHost, JSTOR, ProQuest, NewsBank, and other databases, as well as the materials in the local public libraries and the libraries of Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis University, and Webster University. There is very little in the way of academic books dealing with the topic of modern Messianic Judaism. While it is included in a few encyclopedias and dictionaries of religion, none of those I saw, including some of the most relied upon, trace the MJs to before the middle 20th century. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ThatPeskyCommoner, two points:

• First, when you say 'I had got the feeling that what was being represented here wasn't quite "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".' what exactly is the deviation from truth that you are concerned about? What are the "warning bells," exactly? When you say, "what is meeting the eye has distortions and misrepresentations in it," what are they? Please be specific. It appears that you are questioning the truth of something being presented here, and if so, we need you to identify exactly what it is so we can address it. This is Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard, this is as serious as it gets on Wikipedia (short of ARBCOM). John Carter did not list this case without thought or in haste, and I am not participating here without thought or in haste. I hate being here. I don't want to do this. But John Carter and I feel it has to be done for the benefit of the Wikipedia project as a whole.
• Second, when you say:

  I think one thing which may be needed here is for a completely uninvolved, scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin, to go right through everything, with everyone, to get down to the Actual Truth™ here. ... I would be most unhappy, personally, if any sanctions were applied without a thorough investigation having been done first.

  Sorry, "may be needed"? What else do you think a topic-ban request at Administrators' Noticeboard is asking for? We are asking specifically and exactly for an experienced, uninvolved Admin to review everything in detail. Are you suggesting we're hoping to get our request get rushed through without careful review, or that Admins don't normally review topic-ban requests carefully? John Carter, the editor who brought this request, is indeed a "scrupulous, pains-taking editor in exceptionally good standing, preferably an admin," is an Admin, has over 150,000 edits (please take a moment to reflect on this!), has religion-related articles an area of his special expertise, and has been only minimally involved in the edits at Messianic Judaism--he has not edited the article at all during the time-frame we are discussing, and has less than two dozen edits to the article Talk page in the time-frame we are discussing.

Pesky, you are asking others to make a careful, painstaking review of the detail; have you done so yourself? Have you read Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 21#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again? Have you reviewed the edits and compared them to what the reliable sources say? Of course everyone can contribute to these WP:AN discussions, but contributions here can't be valuable if you haven't done your homework. Zad68 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit counting isn't necessarily a mark of quality or knowing what you are talking about. John Carter became an admin on 14 Jan 2008, if it matters (I have no interest in the subject) Secretlondon (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the date. I understand what you are saying. I was trying to come up with some objectively quantifiable, independently verifiable way to determine if John Carter is an "editor in exceptionally good standing" as Pesky requested. It's difficult to be a very, very active editor and also keep sysop over a very long period of time, so I think it says something. Perhaps what Pesky is asking for is too subjective to satisfy. Zad68 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all difficult given the near impossibility of desysoping. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then Pesky will have to leave it to the individuals reviewing this to make their own, subjective determination. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. DeknMike has strongly held and fixed personal views on the topic. This wouldn't be an issue, except that he continually edits the article to conform to his personal views, regardless of what reliable sources actually say. A classic (and the most recent) example is this edit. The source in question is discussing Christian missions to Jews; from the early 1800s to the mid 1900s mainstream Christian churches established Missions to Jews (often in areas where significant numbers of Jews lived), attempting to convert them to Christianity. The source itself states

"Missions to the Jews during the period were conservative evangelical institutions. It should be noted, therefore, that the years from the 1920s to the 1960s were not ones of decline but rather a period of growth for these enterprises in size, experience, organization and sophistication."

DeknMike "summarized" or "paraphrased" this as:

Its leaders used the decades to build a strong, respectable reputation, and hired Jewish converts as missionaries. Among the missionaries were Martin (Moishe) Rosen, who later founded Jews for Jesus.

This shows the heart of the problem. The source itself says nothing whatsoever about "strong respectable reputation", "hir[ing] Jewish converts", or Martin (Moishe) Rosen. Moreover, when asked what the phrase "its leaders" in his insertion refers to, he states "Why the Messianic Judaism movement, of course!". The source itself is discussing Missions to Jews by established Christian churches, and also explicitly states in that chapter that the "Rise of Messianic Judaism", the "first phase of the movement", occurred "during the early and mid-1970s". DeknMike is well aware of this.

This has been going on for three years. DeknMike has fixed beliefs about the origins of the Messianic movement, and cannot accept what reliable sources say on the topic, so he attributes things to them that they don't say (in the past he would also delete them, but he doesn't do this as much any more). As the various links provided above show, he has modified one specific statement in the article, sourced to seven reliable sources, twenty-three times, simply because he cannot accept what they say. When confronted on the article's talk page, he makes unsubstantiated claims, often accompanied by irrelevant comments about other editors, then typically goes away for a couple of months until the furor dies down, before repeating. There seems to be no way of making him accept what reliable sources say when it disagrees with his beliefs, nor any way of convincing him to edit in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I rarely even look at that article any longer specifically due to this problem. Previously, I was quite an active editor at the page and had numerous encounters with Mike. The problem was exactly as already described: Mike would take vast liberties in claiming that a particular reference stated something when, upon examination of the source, the reference did not. The agenda-pushing was obvious. In fact, without wishing to cast too negative a vibe towards a fellow editor, I often felt that Mike's methods of POV were sneaky - that, if able to get away with it, Mike would re-insert or re-attempt the agenda-pushing after a short time in what I perceived was a hope nobody would notice. This grew tiresome. and only Jayjg appeared up to the task of constant enforcement, whereas I drifted away from the article. Lastly, I agree that the article at one point was in better shape - if I recall correctly, it was written by consensus without the need to tilt it in one direction or the other. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (DeknMike discussion)

My apologies for having been away from this thread for a short while (thus leaving questions unanswered). Too much going on IRL. The biggest qualifier I had for someone to look through the entire history was the completely uninvolved one. That really means someone who has, to date, expressed no particular opinion. And someone who doesn't focus on religion-related articles, too. I really mean completely uninvolved. @Zad, no, I haven't had time to do a thorough review (too much going on IRL, again, and I'm spending quite a lot of time researching a different history, at the moment). As for "deviations from truth", it's a kind of nebulous, skewy thing; a smudging of borderlines, the inclusion of things like (for instance) the "delisted GA" being included as if it had something to do with DeknMike; as if there was some desire to encourage people to assume that it did, and so on. I'm not saying that it was deliberate (yes, I said that before, and I'm saying it again now, to avoid people feeling that they have to attack me, too; attacks on me are not warranted, and they upset me probably a great deal more than most people realise). I can think of one user off-hand, who has previously shown an exceptional talent in going through old history. I have no idea whether they're involved or not, or could spare the time to assist, but I will ask them (some time soon) whether they could / would take that task on; just the dusting off, bringing into the light of day, the old stuff (everything relevant, not just what's here. That's what I mean by The Whole Truth™). Pesky (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, can I ask you to do me a favor--Please step back from your suspicions of what you think might be going on, assume good faith, at try to look at it from our point of view for a minute. Can you see that your involvement in this discussion so far appears to assume that the concern that John Carter and myself and Jayjg have been dealing with isn't legitimate? Can you see that you have made vague but pointed statements that appear to question whether what is being presented here is truthful, but you bring no specifics that deal with the heart of the issue for us to review with you--in fact, you then admit you haven't actually reviewed the details? (This was made especially clear when you wrote, "See if you can discuss this one carefully ... Could you all leave the article alone for a week and just discuss things instead?"--the archives show we've been trying do exactly that for well over a year!) Can you see that you imply we are trying to hide the truth? Pesky, these assumptions feel like an attack, and are upsetting. However, if you feel you know someone who meets your standards (and they are good, high standards!) please do invite them to review and comment here. We want the same thing as you. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: the "warning bells" thing stems from a real-life hat which I've worn for nearly ten years, not a WikiHat. Pesky (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this or how I'm supposed to address it. Zad68 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad (and others!) – apologies if I upset anyone; that wasn't my intention. Sometimes we get so tied up / bogged down in a situation that it interferes with our ability to see the big picture as a complete outsider would. (It's that Confirmation bias thing.) I can see that you all have problems with this situation; my suggestion of discussion wasn't about discussing the article, as such, more about finding a page where you could all get together and discuss the history of your problems with each other, try and unravel them, everyone (DeknMike included) walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, and that stuff. Sometimes that works much better than discussing the article itself (but I do know how much yer average male dislikes openly discussing his feelings! Gross generalisation, I know, but it often holds true!) It's a shame you can't all go down the pub and have several beers together ;P I did email the editor I thought of, but they are on a break and haven't responded (yet). Hugz to all concerned, anyway. I hope you can work something out with the minimum of pain all around. Pesky (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. However, I tend to agree that, intentionally or not, your own comments seem to imply that myself, a self-described devout Catholic, and Jayjg and Avi, who are I think both Jews, are in some way sharing a single confirmation bias. I do not see how such a position is very reasonable itself. In fact, the talk page history will reveal, in fact, that I have engaged in rather substantial discussion with both of them regarding whether there has been any sort of authoritative rejection of the Jewishness of the MJs, which would I think go even further to weaken such claims. This complaint however is not about that. Like I said before, there isn't a great deal of academic material out there on the MJs. I've checked the Washington University libraries, counted as one of the ten best university library systems in the US, the Saint Louis University libraries, counted by Gordon Melton as one of the best religion libraries on the planet, the local public libraries, seminary libraries, and other libraries, in addition to the various databanks. As Jayjg indicated in the section I linked to, DeknMike has a fairly clear recent history of misrepresenting sources, producing material which fails verifiability, and other conduct issues which are, I believe, sufficient cause for action to be taken in this instance. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, we're not looking to start a personal relationship with DeknMike, we just want him to edit in conformance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. That shouldn't be too much to ask, and yet this has been going on for three years now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I am certainly an involved editor as relates this article. DeknMike has had, in my opinion, an inordinate amount of patience shown to him as regards his edits. He tends to misrepresent sources, promote fringe or insufficiently (for Wikipedia) substantiated opinions, and does so with the intent to promote a particular point of view (to which he is entitled to hold, of course) which certainly does not reflect the vast majority of reliable and verifiable sources written by peoples of all creeds. He may disappear for a while, but comes back performing the same non-wiki-acceptable edits, despite the policies abd guidelines having been explained to him again and again. Whilst unfortunate, I agree with the above editors that at this point, DeknMike is acting as an impediment to improving the article, and has acted in a way that makes it difficult to trust that he will edit the article in accordance with our policies and guidelines in the near or forseeable future. A one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions) would seem appropriate; perhaps focusing on other areas for a while will help DeknMike internalize the policies and guidelines, and the extra care needed to maintain the necessary neutrality when we edit articles about which we have a strong feelings. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. What this comes down to is an opinion that Messianic Judaism as a belief that is illegitimate and is nothing more than a new name for Christian missions, created in the 1960s. There has been a consistent push (beginning before I joined) to delegitimize it as a religious movement that is separate both from traditional Judaism and Christianity. The methods include emphasis on why it's the wrong name, discounting sources that give alternate views on the movement, and attacks on anyone who writes otherwise. My so-called 'strong feelings' are for a fair and balanced article that lets the movement talk about itself as freely as other editors let outside/opposition viewpoints be heard. I'm grateful to the other editors for improving my skills, for spurring me to additional research from more sources on all sides of the issue (my opinions aren't 'fixed'); I wish these others could approach the topic with equally open minds and not make it fit their preconceived notions about it. If the content reverted to the 2008 version, with minor updates, it would be much better. They have been trying to reign me in to their views, yet I keep reading sources that contradict their POV. When I've asked for OUTSIDE opinions, they follow me to those boards and make the same tired accusations. This POV won't accept any source that doesn't align with their preconceived assumptions. If Feher, who said its "origins can be traced in the United States to the Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries" had meant 'began' she would have said 'began' and not 'arose.' Of his oft-repeated 7 sources, four say a segment of the Hebrew Christian movement emerged and changed its name and one says it existed in the 1940s. Yet they continue to harp on that one undefined word with no thought as to finding consensus, though I have tried over and over to find a synonym that squares with the 'approved' sources, even discounting the sources they veto as 'not authoritative enough'.--DeknMike (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First, Mike, it is generally understood without saying that the person being proposed for a ban disagrees with it. Second, your own comments above clearly indicate why the ban is sought. And your clear statements which directly violate WP:AGF contained in the above statement also demonstrate part of the problem. You accuse others of "preconceived assu\mptions", which have to my knowledge never been demonstrated, as an apparent excuse for avoiding dealing with the issue of your own violations of policies and guidelines. The "tired accusations" you rail against are in fact attempts to get the material to abide by policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:SPS, and WP:WEIGHT, and, in your individual case, WP:POV. In short, you have been regularly acting out of accord with policies and guidelines, and sought instead to impugn others as an attempt to distract from that. I personally have no opinions one way or another about the MJs, about whom I have no particular interest one way or another. The fact that you keep reading sources self-published by MJs does less to demonstrated the POV of others than perhaps the POV of those sources, and perhaps that of an editor who seems to seek out those sources. Like I've said, I have been to several libraries, and consulted all the online sources available to me. It is so far as I can tell your own preconceived notions which are the issue here, not those of anyone else. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Sadly, as the latest edits to the Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism (my latest edit here), and Mike's latest edit here, show the behavior causing this WP:AN discussion to be created in the first place is continuing right through this moment. Regarding Messianic Judaism, Mike's ad hominem that the other editors at the article are on a mission to "delegitimize it as a religious movement" instead of a embarking on a good-faith effort to get the article to reflect what multiple, independent reliable sources say is a new attack that fails WP:AGF and continues a disruptive editing pattern. Mike's suggestion that the article should be rolled back to what it said in 2008 (which was "Modern Messianic Judaism was reborn in the 1960s," supported by a single reference to the outrageously non-WP:RS anonymous blog "Messianic Judaism - The Best Recipe. RabbiYeshua.com. Kehilat Sar Shalom.") is a conclusive example of his desire to push a POV using sources in a way that is entirely unacceptable to WP:V, over having the article reflect what reliable sources say. Regarding the content (especially Mike's latest untrue contention here that "one says it existed in the 1940s"), please see the latest on the article Talk page--this WP:AN thread is about editor behavior issues, article content discussion is at the article page. Zad68 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it untrue that reference 10, by the same author as reference 3, says quite clearly: "When the term resurfaced in Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, it designated all Jews who accepted Christianity in its Protestant evangelical form. ... It conveyed the sense of a new, innovative religion rather that[sic] an old, unfavorable one. The term was used in reference to those Jews who accepted Jesus as their personal savior, and did not apply to Jews accepting Roman Catholicism who in Israel have called themselves Hebrew Christians. The term Messianic Judaism was adopted in the United States in the early 1970s by those converts to evangelical Christianity who advocated a more assertive attitude on the part of converts towards their Jewish roots and heritage"? How, then is my direct quote of the source 'untrue'? I keep assuming good faith, but see little in return. I acknowledge my own point of view and guard against it, but see little reciprocity. I tolerate wp:weight with regards to detailed lists of why others don't believe MJ is a valid religion. I don't remember a single instance in the past few years of WP:SPS, though perhaps you've been keeping track.--DeknMike (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The quote is true, your interpretation of it is not, as I mentioned before this content dispute is covered here: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Roots_of_Messianic_Judaism. At this point I'm going to leave this to the review of others. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I became aware of this problem last October. At the time, DeknMike was doing exactly what is being raised here. Multiple reliable sources stated one thing, DeknMike disagreed, so he insisted on changing what they said, or interpreting them as saying things they did not say. When challenged, his answers were mostly inventions, tangents, OR personal attacks. I don't think there's any hope he'll stop, after this long. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the topic ban for now, as too many potential analogies of babies and bathwater come to mind. I think I'm neutral enough to chime in here -- I've been an occasional editor at the article in question for a while, and have watched various debates involving DeknMike from afar. I can see the basis for claims of POV-pushing, but he absolutely has contributed constructively to the article. In the case of this edit, Mike's statement actually is backed up by the latter two sources. Though the text shouldn't have been placed behind several refs that did not explicitly support it, that doesn't look like a blatant misrepresentation of sources to me. I've countered some of Mike's arguments before, but I give him the benefit of the doubt here, and note that he actually made a change to the article which comported with multiple sources cited. Granted, there are places where he hasn't done this, but I've also seen other editors ignore sourcing at least as much as Mike ever has. For example, Jayjg completely ignored the source's actual words when he reverted an edit made by Dalai lama ding dong that was basically a matter of syntactical nuance only, and should have been completely non-controversial. The fact that I had to revert a revert that wouldn't have taken place had Jayjg bothered to scroll to the bottom and read the source excerpt just irks me, and makes me suspect of this whole situation.

There are problems with the article. For sure. Until I fixed it, one ref had been used to back up a statement exactly to the contrary of what it actually said. No one who has edited the article of late is innocent, but it's completely unreasonable to single out Mike alone in this regard, and the fact that it's being done like this just makes me uneasy about some editors' motivations, particularly given other seemingly nonsensical changes to sourced material by Mike's opponents that seem to only serve the purpose of distancing the content of the article from what associated organizations say about themselves, no matter how non-controversial the (sourced) statements may be. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No-one has said that Mike is incapable of making any good edits - as Marwood says in Withnail and I, "even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day". The problem is that the vast majority of his edits on this topic have consistently been problematic, a fact your comment fails to address. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My point, though, is that many of the claims (made by multiple users at the talk page) of certain of his edits being nonconstructive or uncorroborated by sources simply were not true. His edits were reverted and combatted on that basis, but in some cases (not all) that basis was either incorrect or nonexistent. I haven't gone through every one of his contribs, so I can't verify whether or not the majority of his contributions were nonconstructive, as you say. As far as I can see (and I'm not all-seeing by any means), he doesn't deserve his topic ban. I rather liked In ictu oculi's suggestion of a voluntary sanction, but a full topic ban is totally inappropriate at this stage, in my opinion. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Evan would you please, please, please read up on the full history here, there plenty of links are here for you in this WP:AN discussion, it's distressing that you would !vote without reviewing the contribs and Talk page history. Please read my !vote above in support of this topic ban; I said specifically that I have indeed had constructive interaction with Mike at the article and gave a link to a specific example. This is actually already taken into account in the proposed action--the ban would not include topic-related Talk pages for that very reason. Question back to you is, how low can the signal-to-noise ratio be allowed to go, and for how long, before action needs to be taken? One good edit out of... 10? 100? Take a look at the history please and tell us if it changes your mind. The rest of what you wrote, such as questioning a revert of Dalai Lama Ding Dong by Jayjg, is basically "nobody has clean hands" and reminds me of how WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Zad68 (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

When did I say that I haven't reviewed the contribs or the talk page history? I said that I hadn't "gone through every one of his contribs". I'm familiar with the situation; in fact I have been for months now. How many of Mike's 1,661 edits have you personally reviewed?

The Jayjg revert is relevant because it shows how much attention (i.e., none) several of the editors pay to edits before getting revert-happy on the article. I'll respond to your question on the signal-to-noise ratio by inquiring as to how many times constructive edits (a few of which Mike's, most of which weren't) ought to be reverted before action is taken. There is no mathematical ratio established by policy that deals with that sort of thing. You know that as well as I do, so don't be facetious.

I've already shown that at least one of Mike's contested changes to the article was backed up by at least two sources, while it was disputed and removed from the article under the false assumption that it was not backed up by any of them. In other words, a large part of the reason we're here is because the reverting editors didn't take the time to actually check the sources before reverting Mike's edits based on a hunch. Is that acceptable to you? Don't we have a responsibility to honestly and thoroughly evaluate changes to an article before dismissing them out of hand? Or are we at the point now where a group of editors can completely override verifiability? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It has also been shown above that the majority of Mike's edits have been in direct opposition to Wikipedia's core principles, have been engaged in trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a personal point of view, and have been continued despite multiple explanations and warnings. Most of Mike's work has been carefully reviewed and found to be wanting, if not outright inappropriate. Bringing in one revert by Jay about the term "religious", done to the edits of a different editor, not Mike, does not in any way shape or form detract from the well-documented history of Mike's inability (or outright refusal) to follow the rules which he agreed to follow by creating an account here. If anyone has an issue with verifiability, Evan, it's Mike, not Jayjg. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't removed under any "false assumption", and the issue here is that DeknMike is completely overriding verifiability. It might make sense to review all the evidence provided. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I can see easily why everybody's got heated here, and everybody (DeknMike included) has excellent points. Also, I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation, and moving forwards. Pesky (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, did you read the history as was asked of you before !voting? This !vote does not at all address any of the well-documented, long-term, persistent disruptive editing. It appears to be based on a desire not to see someone's feelings hurt, rather than a desire to allow improvement to Wikipedia content. How much weight should be given to a !vote that doesn't address any of the core issues raised? Regarding "I think we may be getting somewhere with defusing this whole situation"--I am not seeing any evidence to support this statement because DeknMike has not made any article edits and has not at all joined the discussion on the article Talk page since you started providing input there. All the current activity at the article proves is that when Mike is not involved in editing the article or in the discussion, progress can be made. Zad68 13:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zad here. Pesky, your opinion does not address the issues brought in the request, instead talking about "points". This is not an issue of feelings, but of a documented long-term pattern of someone who refuses to abide by the guidelines and principles that Wikipedia requires of all its members when it comes to a particular topic area. Instead, this person persists in violating said core principles to further a personal agenda. This has been going on, if I am not mistaken, for multiple years. The project needs to enforce protections of its core principles somehow, and, at this point, I do not believe Mike can edit in this area in accordance with our rules. Some time off from this area, allowing Mike to develop that ability, is warranted, in my opinion. As an aside, Pesky, which points of Mike's do you believe are "excellent" and simultaneously in accordance with our policies and guidelines? -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Per the problems outlined above, specifically editing inconsistent with the given sourced and edit warring. Editors with far less egregious behavior have been topic banned from subjects that they edit as an SPA. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lack of massive evidence: A topic ban requires an extensive amount of evidence, not just several users expressing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Because Wikipedia is not a witch-hunt, I must oppose a topic ban which lacks massive evidence of disruptive editing, or lacks numerous personal attacks against other editors, etc. Disagreement is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I would ask you to perhaps read a bit more thoroughly the comments above. Avi's comment that, and I quote, "...the majority of Mike's edits have been in direct opposition to Wikipedia's core principles, have been engaged in trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a personal point of view, and have been continued despite multiple explanations and warnings. Most of Mike's work has been carefully reviewed and found to be wanting, if not outright inappropriate." That goes far beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but clearly states that the editor has behaved in a way which is directly contrary to wikipedia core principles. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

!vote summary (DeknMike discussion)

Summary of opinions (last updated 05:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC))

Here is summarized only the !votes and proposed scope and timeframe of the ban; arguments for or against are not covered here. NOTE: summary was written by me, Zad68, hopefully to make reviewing the current status easier. It is MY UNDERSTANDING based on the contributions here, and I have done my very best to reflect what people have proposed accurately. If I got it wrong for you, or if your mind has changed, PLEASE CORRECT IT. (Please do not change the entries of users other than yourself.) Zad68 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

At this time, there is general agreement among supporters for topic ban on article pages defined by content area (as opposed to a specific list of pages), but the exact scope has not yet been made unambiguously clear. The idea of excluding article Talk pages from the ban has been proposed and no supporter has objected. Two supporters propose a one-year duration, but there has not been significant discussion about the duration of the ban.

• User:John Carter as nominator, topic ban "from the main Messianic Judaism page, and possibly related Messianic Judaism pages as well"; updated as "ban to be from all articles relating to the history of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed."
• User:Zad68, topic ban "for all article pages or sections of article pages dealing with the subject of Messianic Judaism, broadly construed, including but not limited to such things as its history, development, and current state. Included would be anything that has or should be in Category:Messianic_Judaism (or whatever its name evolves into should the category name change). Not included in the ban would be article Talk: pages."
  • I update my proposal here to specify a time frame of one year. Zad68 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• User:Jayjg, "Support topic ban" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
• User:A Sniper, "Support topic ban" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
• User:Avraham, "Support ... a one-year topic ban on articles related to Messianic Judaism (and that may need to extend to articles that discuss any relationship between the two religions)"
• User:Plot Spoiler, "Support" without ban scope detail or timeframe.
• User:Brewcrewer, "Support" without ban scope detail or timeframe.

Non-!voting comment

• User:In ictu oculi - "I don't myself think this calls for a topic ban yet, but it does call for something" suggesting "that DeknMike volunteers to self-impose a period (2 months?) where he can submit content and sources to the Talk page only and no edits to the article."

Oppose

• User:Evanh2008, "Oppose," but Evanh2008 does go on to say "I rather liked In ictu oculi's suggestion of a voluntary sanction, but a full topic ban is totally inappropriate at this stage"
• User:ThatPeskyCommoner, "Oppose topic ban"
• User:Wikid77, "Oppose due to lack of massive evidence"

Named party

• User:DeknMike "Oppose"

Request for closure

This thread had been moved to the archives for lack of activity before being restored. I would very much like to have an uninvolved administrator review the discussion and close the conversation one way or another. I cannot believe having the matter unresolved will in any way be useful or productive to the editors involved in the content under discussion. Thank you in advance for closing. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh. I was actually about to close it with a topic ban for DeknMike (talk · contribs) from any content or page related to Messianic Judaism; I think the evidence and discussion clearly support such a remedy. But in looking at DeknMike's contribs, I see he's been active at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, as have I. I'm not exactly prepared to take a chance on this site's ever-shifting definition of "involvement", so I'm going to pass - but I think there's clearly a strong rationale for a topic ban here. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Community Ban Proposal for editor Horizontal Law

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.

---

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I propose yet again another community ban against Horizontal Law (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's already a mastermind sockmaster, who puppeteered the account Flowers of Romance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and created another set of sockpuppets under that account, which is somewhat the same way how GENIUS(4th Power (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) masterminded the Rusty Trombone accounts. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him/her. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: There's plenty clear and convincing evidence, and his/her Sockpuppet archive clearly tells it all, and well as his inappropriate conduct on Wikipedia. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - blocked users who use sock puppets must learn their place. It's game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - based on history of significant abuse of sockpuppets. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question - what has he actually done? Just to be clear, I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong, I just haven't the faintest idea what he has done because all I see is less than a page of minor edits by one account, that look weird but not obviously ban-worthy, and no edits by another one. Are there a bunch of deleted edits? Egg Centric 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lack of massive evidence: A community ban requires an extensive amount of evidence, not just several users expressing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Because Wikipedia is not a witch-hunt, I must oppose a ban which lacks massive evidence of disruptive editing, or lacks numerous personal attacks against other editors, etc. Disliking is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - The user has abused multiple accounts, all of which have been promptly blocked under existing policy. I don't quite see the need for a community ban, as any future sock activity that isn't a "Fresh Start" would be considered illegitamite and dealt with accordingly anyway. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Viriditas

• Viriditas (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I don't like personal attacks ([108], [109], [110], [111]). I have warned him three times by now (1 text, two Twinkle-tags) ([112], [113], [114]). But rereading his talkpage, he in fact said that he wanted to battle it out if I dared to report him. In fact, I took that as a threat and request to report him and so here is the report.

By now, Viriditas is also warned about his behaviour by two other Wikipedians. It seems that his passion for "Template:American cuisine" is going out of hand. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll gladly take your fishy bait. Those diffs show responses to your personal attacks and your repeated trolling of the template talk page. To date, you made 11 contributions to the discussion over at Template talk:American cuisine.[115] You trolled the talk page in your second edit, when you proposed adding an image of lard to represent all American cuisine.[116] Then, you attacked me personally in your third edit.[117] You demanded I prove a negative (typical trolling behavior) in your sixth edit,[118] made a fallacious appeal to the majority and to non-existent, anecdotal evidence in your eighth edit,[119] avoided answering a simple, direct question (and replied with a trollish accusation) in your tenth edit, and directly contradicted yourself and a previous edit you made (indicating you were trolling) in your eleventh edit.[120] After discovering you weren't getting the "bites" you were after by trying to start an uber-trollish America vs. The World dispute, like the kind we find on external forum sites, you then proceeded to visit my user talk page, where you spent the next hour template bombing and harassing me to bait me even further.[121][122][123] Please use an external website for flame wars about Americans vs. other nations, because this is the wrong site for it. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Interesting, but I can see the Belgian article without any subscription and with a clear picture of a hamburger in it: De Standaard. Besides that. I am not the only requesting you to stop your attacks. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please stop the trolling; that isn't a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. Finally, you need to stop the stalking and blanket reverting of my edits on pages you've never edited before. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Aha, another unsubstantiated attack. May I point on the fact that I reverted only 7 of the 13 templates you altered. And that you reverted all 7 without any comment? Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You're trolling, again. You stalked and hounded me on articles you've never edited before for no reason other than to blanket revert my edits and harass me. Further, you haven't participated in the discussion about these edits, so accusing me of not commenting on your reverts is just more trolling on your end. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
          • So what? I don't see any edits of you at the templates about Canadian Cuisine, Japanese cuisine, Korean cuisine, Serbian cuisine, Turkish cuisine, Pakistani cuisine, Moroccan cuisine, Italian cuisine, Algerian cuisine, Indian cuisine, Chinese cuisine, British cuisine and Argentine cuisine, before you removed the picture. But if you read the history properly (what you clearly didn't do), you can see edits of me on the templates about Turkish cuisine and Serbian cuisine (where I didn't revert you). Why you deny me the right to edit those articles is an absolute mystery to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
            • • The real mystery is why you are hounding me and blanket reverting my edits without any known reason for your reverts. It is a mystery is why you keep avoiding the argument and attacking other editors. The mystery of your continual disruption is the issue. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
                • Do you have any real arguments or do you only have PAs and false accusations available? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Use of the term xenophobe by Viriditas did come off a bit extreme until hearing his side of the story. Night of the Big Wind wanting pictures of lard shown as representative of American cuisine, and suggesting Viriditas is ignorant for not being abroad more, is somewhat inflammatory. Perhaps there is room for agreement by having a section on "Global perceptions of American cuisine" which could provide sourcing for what views outside American are concerning its cuisine. Viriditas is right though that it needs to rely on sources and that this is more a 'culture war' than any attempt to resort to personal attacks. I think there might be a little too much sensitivity here and hopefully there is room for compromise where both sides are presented. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Aha, a now blocked sockpop (see his talkpage) Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Viriditas has not been on his best behavior in the discussion, he openly violated WP:3R by reverting the article to the state he wanted it to be in. He ignored WP:BRD at first, insisting that his was the proper way to have the template configured. The main issue I have with him is that he ignored one of the baser protocols when arguing a point - Argue your points and point out the deficiencies in the arguments other commentators, but do not point out percieved deficiencies of the other commentators themselves. He made several snide comments regarding myself and others in his attempt to argue his point. These actions were a bit over the top for someone with his time and experience he on WP.

I took Night's comment for what it was, a joke made in an attempt to lighten the tone of the conversation. We as Americans have a problem with obesity and he was poking fun at that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Ah... So refreshing to see Viriditas name at WP:AN. I don't think a site ban is sufficient in this case. Do we have a sanction more severe than that? Can we ban him from the Internet? Lacking a total and complete irrevocable biometric Internet ban for life--and any reincarnated personages--perhaps this should be moved to WP:WQA. On the serious side, V was definitely edit warring--and his justification doesn't hold water. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• On a side note, if you wish to participate in the discussion at Template talk:American cuisine, you are welcome (referring to anyone who reads this). The more people, the better. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By now, mr. Viriditas started altering 13 other navboxes relating to foreign cuisine. Out of those 13 cases, I reverted 7, as not being irrelavant, as he claimed. Only effect was a unexplained revert by mr. Viriditas. Arguments he used to remove the images were Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (what says nothing about navigationboxes but is about images in the lead of an article), Wikipedia:LAYIM (about the layout and size of images, no word specifically about navboxes), Wikipedia:Navigation templates (what shoes that images are allowed) and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Wikipedia:NAVBOX (what says nothing about images). And last, he uses Wikipedia:IRELEV to remove the images, what means saying that a picture of spaghetti is irrelevant to Italian Cuisine.

With reporting mr. Viriditas here, I am not trying to get him blocked or banned. I would be good enough for me when he stops editing articles and templates about food. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a troll. I properly notified the discussion of edits to 13 other articles.[124] That discussion, over at Template_talk:American_cuisine#Anna's sense, has support for my edits. If you don't support those edits, you are welcome at any time to use the discussion page and make your case, however, you can't and you won't because you are just trolling for attention. Your entire purpose here is to attack and harass other users, and that's at odds with the goals of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And the next attack. Can you explain to me why editwarring and personal attacks is beneficial to Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to start explaining why you've been following my contributions and reverting my edits for no reason. How did your reverts improve Wikipedia? How did any of your contributions to the discussion improve Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I only looked up the 13 templates you announced to have changed. And instead of blanked reverts, I only reverted half of them, with an explanation. That was rather different with your unexplained reverts only minutes later on all templates I had changed. Secondly, I have a proven track record on articles and templates to food and drink related subjects. You are an experienced editor, with an even longer tour of duty then I have, so you should know better then the way your are acting now. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

V, could you please stop with making these changes based on very little discussion and your own personal opinions. Changes such as these should really be made via discussion and consensus, not capricious, wholes scale removal. Again you are violating WP:3R, WP:BRD and no you are engaging in WP:Pointy behavior. Ongoing personal attacks add to this spate of awful behavior and are not productive. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making things up. The changes I've made have support on the talk page, and there's been a massive amount of discussion on the topic, with primary objections consisting of "I own the template", "I don't like it", "me too", and "Americans are fat". Your stalking, hounding and blanket reversions without reason, and continual stream of false allegations and accusations are noted. Your attempt to engage in the "I lost the discussion so let's play the civility card" tactic is noted. Viriditas (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So if I summerize it correctly, everybody, including Jimbo and the Queen of Engeland, was behaving badly, with the notable exception of mr. Viriditas? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This began with you making personal attacks, followed by you trolling the talk page, harassing me on my user talk page, and finally, hounding me on other articles and blanket reverting me because you lost the argument. You're here, along with Jeremy, because when you can't attack the argument, you're best bet is to attack the contributor, hoping nobody will actually spend the time to look at the diffs. Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange, but that is just exactly what you are doing by calling me a troll and calling some of my remarks xenofobic! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Viriditas, no matter what the situation at the article, it has not been my experience that another editor's behavior is improved by calling him a troll. If you need help at that article, then get help.

(Does he really think lard is typical of American cooking? The average American eats less than 15 grams of lard each week (ISBN 9780824767822 p. 341). A single serving of British Lardy cake or Spanish Manteca colorá will have more than that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't think that. He is trying to start a flame war, and failing. His entire argument consists of "Americans are fat and stupid", which is perfectly fine with me, but that's not what we at discussing on the talk page, and he keeps trying to change the subject from arguments to editors. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I can't remember to have said that anywhere in the discussion. Do you have proof of that? What I did say is that in my experiences in The Netherlands and Ireland (=just my experiences, not universal), most people identify "American Cuisine" with hamburgers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Night of the Big Wind is not a troll. To me it looks like a classic use of WP:BOOMERANG to quell criticism. As long as Viriditas can, in some way, any way, make his accuser look equally culpable, then he gets off scot free. Because the Admins are going to say, well, both sides misbehaved, end of story, next case please. The fact is, without the 3RR violations, ownership, and refusal seek consensus, there wouldn't have ever been any tit for tat. Viriditas caused that. All over a fairly insignificant navbox picture which by its very nature couldn't be expected to please everybody. Why go to war over that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The sound of your axe grinding is so loud, reports are coming in from Alpha Centauri. . How about providing some diffs, starting with this alleged 3rr you speak of? This should be interesting. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I kind of saw that coming. Ad hominem is your M.O. First attack Night of the Big Wind, then attack anybody else who doesn't side with you. Always attack, attack, attack, and that will drag everyone else down into the muck, and muddy the waters so badly that there will be no consequences. Guys who have been editing Wikipedia many years seem to grasp that tactic quite well. And you'll probably get away with it, as usual, so why pay attention to someone like me? You know your business. I see someone else has said Night of the Big Wind is not a troll. Better run and attack them now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Translation, you don't have any diffs because you're just making stuff up. Quick, what's a 12 letter word for someone who does that? Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment- I won't comment on whether pictures of hamburgers and lard are representative of American cuisine, but from the rest of the diffs provided it does not look like NOTBW is trolling or anything like that. It looks more to me as though Viriditas is overreacting and trying to interpret NOTBW's edits in the worst possible way. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is a real discussion? I would say a cup of tea Coke is called for here. There is no single image which would exemplify all of US cuisine, so that cavil is useless. Maine lobster, Gulf shrimp, Colorado beef, Hamburgers and brats, apple pie and pecan pie , sourdough bread, and lots more are all part of American cuisine, and since we can not put everything into a grand stew in a single picture, it makes sense to not even try to cover everything. My own suggestion? an ice cream cone - certified American from about 1904. Chocolate. Collect (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have offered to rework a picture with frybread, a Native American type of bread with a history far older then all other cooking styles in the United States. And secondly, bread is, as far as I know, used in every style of kitchen mentioned in the template and so neutral. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment No strong opinion the the content dispute above, but I think both editors went too far at times with each other. Some clearly unacceptable stuff, and we should all try to avoid it in the future. Agreed? Arkon (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't disrupt the discussion and attack the user for being Dutch and then proceed to make fun of his cuisine. I didn't argue that Wikipedia should promote stereotypes of Dutch people and refer to them as uncouth simpletons. I wasn't the one who then proceeded to template bomb a regular and make accusations on their talk page. What I did do, was call a spade a spade. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You started off with an editwar, my friend. That is clearly disruptive behaviour. And secondly, I never made fun of the American kitchen. I just told you that the view on American Cuisine outside the United States might be totally different then your view. As WP is supposed to be neutral, that is an opinion that must be taken into account. And clearly not brushed away as being an xenofobic, as you did. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I started nothing of the sort; I've now withdrawn from the discussion and I have no intent on ever returning. Please continue your "fishing" expedition...without me, as I have no patience for it. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Then read you own edits again, my friend. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this is on AN. WP:WQA is thataway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. While an interesting content dispute, the meat of this is q content dispute, which some harsh language thrown in for seasoning. Please take it elsewhere.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• To me the most American of cuisine is sweet pomegranite salad with also chopped walnuts, apples, raisins, mixed w whipped cream (must use home-grown, sweet, soft-seeded Eversweet strain of "pommers," not the standard, tart, Spanish Ruby).

  W rgd user Veriditas: Everybody knows that no-one is ever sanctioned for personal attacks on Wikipedia. So, ignore that and simply address eg the charge of 3R, which should have been accompanied w diffs.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No-indexed page appearing in google search due to mirror site

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anindya Ghose should be no-indexed, and it is; however, an old version of it exists on this mirror site. The page has now been created at Anindya Ghose and the author has requested deletion (through IRC) because he does not want the AFC version to appear in a google search. In a search for Anindya Ghose Wikipedia, the mirror site version appears as roughly the fourth link down. Is there anything we can do about it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no... the author will need to contact whoever runs the mirror to request its deletion or no-indexing there. 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion, Hrafn

Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users being notified of this discussion: User_talk:Goo2you, User_talk:Maiorem, User_talk:Mthoodhood, User_talk:John_lilburne, User_talk:Kenatipo, User_talk:John_J._Bulten, User:Hrafn. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom decision

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Etiquette states,

  2) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.

  Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence

• Evidence of lack of respect for another editor, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive133#William Lane Craig,

  Most notable is user User:Hrafn who began his involvement in this article since 26 May 2011, and has repeatedly deleted important information from the article with such reasons given as "Rm: WP:OR that is NOT IN THE CITED SOURCES!" despite not being familiar with the source in question; "UTTERLY worthless sources on UTTERLY unimportant website"...00:25, 16 September 2011

• Evidence of disrupting Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive38#Marcus R. Ross: Selected Bibliography,

  ...Hrafn's tendentious and disruptive edit warring...05:45, 17 January 2008

• Shouting at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive108#David Berlinski,

  What are you shouting for?...19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks!..."Turns out that you actually do know that..." John lilburne is misrepresenting me again....Hrafn...12:06, 5 February 2011

• Personal attack on another editor, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive140#James O'Keefe,

  Regurgitation of these tired, reality-divorced talking points amounts to no more than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la...This is not even pretending you're "contributing to an encyclopedia"...Hrafn...02:56, 22 December 2011

• Commenting on the contributor, not the contribution, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive108#David Berlinski,

  Therefore the FACT is that you haven't got a leg to stand on. Hrafn...15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attack at Talk:John F. Ashton, "...sections out of chronological order -- it is [[WP:DE|disruptive]]...Hrafn...05:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)".

• Diff showing that there is a well-known and long-standing problem.

Personal attacks or evidence of personal attacks on Unscintillating:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MHG Systems,

  I find User:Hrafn's behaviour towards User:Unscintillating counterproductive (calling names and declaring the discussion "too long to read")...12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Talk:John Hartnett (physicist), diff,

  Unscintillating pig-headedly...Hrafn...08:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Accusations and uncivil behavior at Talk:John F. Ashton:
  • ...'''BLATANTLY OBVIOUS''' that Ashton is a YEC, and [[WP:DE|disrupt]] the article...Hrafn...06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ...claim that we do not know that Ashton is a YEC is decidedly [[WP:POINT]]...Hrafn...09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • And here's a quote of where I MET THE FRACKING BURDEN! ...Hrafn...04:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

    Diff:

• Talk:Mark Dalbey, diff,

  This comment tells me nothing whatsoever of any validity about the facts, but everything about the character and general trustworthiness of its author. Relevant pages to describe your comment would appear to be WP:TE & WP:CB. I didn't have a high opinion of you previously, and rather thought that your nick was somewhat of an understatement. I now see that you are a perfect antonym of wikt:scintillating. Such extreme, blatant and fallacious WP:Synthesis of what the sources actually state would fail to 'scintillate' even the village idiot...Hrafn...12:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to strike

• To use the language of the courtroom (though cognizant that Wikipedia is not a court of law), the 'accused' moves that this purported 'evidence' be stricken, as being based repeatedly on (i) hearsay (what other users accuse me of having done), including one wild accusation from a long-banned sockpuppet (User:Goo2you), or (ii) quotation out of context -- including the egregious example where I am accused of "Commenting on the contributor, not the contribution" where the quotation conveniently omits my comments on the 'contribution' and only includes my "haven't got a leg to stand on" conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strike-through has been added to evidence not written by Hrafn.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But not of rampant quotation out of context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Analysis

• User Hrafn's contributions show a pattern that he/she is either challenged by or chooses to bounds-test our civility policy and talk page guidelines.  This is not a new problem.
• Hrafn's personal attacks on Talk:John F. Ashton cannot be dealt with on that page without drawing attention to the editor rather than the contributions.  Therefore, I am effectively barred from further contributions on that page because Hrafn has accused me of disruption.
• Violations of the Arbcom ruling are listed as:
  • Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute.
  • personal attacks,
  • lack of respect for other editors,
  • failure to work towards consensus,
  • disrupting Wikipedia to make a point
  • offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms)
  • gaming the system

Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

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

---

I propose that going forward, Hrafn is to be topic banned from any article for four months in which he/she engages in incivility; including not acting calmly, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language, and gaming the system.  This is to be interpreted strictly.  Hrafn will comment on contributions, not contributors.  Hrafn will not use the word "you" to refer to another editor.  Hrafn will not make edits without edit comments.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hrafn has a real nasty bedside manner and often demonstrates WP:IDHT in content disputes. That said I would need to see evidence of sustained disruption (e.g. WP:EW) to support a topic ban. I recommend that you go to WQA for the next few incidents, and if there is still a problem WP:RFCU. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment This is a very poorly presented and ill thought out proposal, which was accompanied by canvassing.[125][126][127][128][129][130] No topic ban of this nature is likely to pass. The content seems to involve Young Earth Creationism. Apart from that, it appears this is a question of wikiquette, so shouldn't this have been reported at WP:WQA? Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As per the directions for filing a request here, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The users listed, e.g. John lilburne and Kenatipo, do not appear to be the subject of the discussion, i.e. Hrafn. Mathsci (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what more you want, they are all listed at the beginning of the post, they are all being quoted, and now they have all been notified as per the requirements of posting here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible to determine whether these people are being quoted giving your presentation above, without any diffs. Even if it were the case, what you have done is nevertheless canvassing. But, leaving that aside, topic bans are always for a specific set of articles and their talk pages. What you seem to be suggesting is "civility probation". Mathsci (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

All quotes either have diffs or direct links to archives.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Correction, I added a diff here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

From which set of articles and their talk pages are you proposing that Hrafn should be banned? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be those going forward in which Hrafn either chooses to disregard or is unable to observe the civility policies and talk page guidelines as further defined in the recent ArbCom decision.  The point is to put feedback in the system so that there is behavior change.  This problem has been going on for at least four years with an apparently unending series of editors being the target of Hrafn's incivility.  I don't see your point about "civility probation", because if the requirements of a topic ban are violated, admins respond with warnings or sanctions.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that is not a topic ban. It is your own version of "civility probation". Please try WP:WQA. Mathsci (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As if this is my problem and not one shared by many editors over the last four years.  Is that your only suggestion?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrafn is a perfectly good editor. He understands very well how to use secondary sources and how to deal with fringey, nonencyclopedic content. I could imagine that faced with a string of WP:IDHT responses (on articles presumably WP:CPUSH) his action might be one of frustration and fatigue; but that would be true of almost every regular editor who found themselves in the same circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That is open to discussion. As I recall in the encounter I had with him over Berlinski he was taking polemical taunts as factual evidence, and WP:IDHT was, despite the protests, something that he'd engaged in for some two years. However, that is all in the past and hopefully things have changed. Although I haven't checked - Should I? John lilburne (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Re: Hrafn. Some of us seem to cause him to lose his manners. However, if his advice is given careful consideration, his is invariably good counsel. I have wished for kinder treatment from him. But I have never regretted his being part of an article's development. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Hrafn has been an excellent contributor to the John F. Ashton article and I feel as if the quotes taken from the Talk:John F. Ashton talk page are unrepresentative and inadvertently misleading. For example, the part where he mentions "met the FRACKING burden" was in direct response to the (undoubtedly unintentional) insinuation by fellow editor that Hrafn failed to substantiate his reasons / evidence for adding/restoring a claim to a biography of a living person. Perhaps his word choice is not the same as what I would have used but he was responding to the substance of another user's issue with him on a content dispute and I feel that banning from his editing of that article will have a serious and deleterious effect on the quality of the Ashton article, which is a very difficult area of research due to the general lack of availability of sources on this issue. I have not observed any sign that User:Hrafn has any problems that will impair the success of his contribution to this article and I urge you to please reconsider any topic ban that will prevent him from continuing his hard work volunteering here on John F. Ashton and other projects. DrPhen (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misguided proposal Hrafn is one of a small number of editors who defend the encyclopedia against WP:UNDUE nonsense being added to promote WP:FRINGE views, and I have admired Hrafn's editing for a couple of years. Occasionally somewhat strong comments are made, but I do not recall seeing anything inappropriate from Hrafn. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment My one encounter with Hrafn was in the Berlinsky discussion on the BLPN. I don't recall him being unduly rude, offensive, derogatory, or insulting (at least nothing that one couldn't simply ignore as bluster). What I did find is that in his efforts to keep nonsense out, he along with others were quite prepared to add, keep, and defend nonsense of their own. But that was well over a year ago and he doesn't seem to be any worse than most in that respect. John lilburne (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

editor blocked as sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At the same time I've seen material called undue or fringe that is very well-sourced. These can prove excuses to not follow the sources, likewise with 'consensus'. Still, Hrafn from what I saw was willing to follow the sources, he just had a different interpretation of what sources were suitable, and focused on 3rd-party news sources rather than an individual's authored books. So long as he is willing to discuss the issue on the talk page and acknowledge credible sources when they are presented I am not sure I see what the problem is. However, I realize Hrafn has been editing the page for almost a year, and I saw only recent edits, so there could be more about his edits I'm just not aware of. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC) In a thread above editors have pointed out that the IP above might have had previous accounts, also advocating YEC. The account has been blocked twice since he started editing 9 days ago. Hot off their second three day block they seem to be spamming this page with unhelpful and disruptive comments. Mathsci (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I notice from my talk page said editors began a sockpuppet investigation and their request was declined.[131] If you think my comments are unhelpful and disruptive, perhaps you could explain why they are such. This is pretty ironic you say this since here I am opposing discipline for Hrafn despite his disruptive edits on a Creationist page. My blocks had nothing to do with an IP issue and everything to do with edit warring by tendentious censorship after I provided dozens of sources on the talk page showing a major issue involving Obama wasn't addressed, and 3 editors then engaged in edit warring and thread closings to prevent the issue from being discussed even for a few hours. Their edit warring was ignored, but my reversions resulted in short-term bans. My original edits stand on their own as well-sourced, reasonable, and constructive.[132] --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Suggesting "a one-week topic ban from the page itself" cannot be described as "opposing discipline". Just as a matter of interest, have you had any registered accounts in the past? Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) My exact words were "If any action needs to be pursued, I think it should be at most a one-week topic ban from editing the page itself so he can talk this through on the talk page discussion." I specifically said that was the maximum discipline which should be enacted and only "If any action needs to be pursued". I also specifically said I thought it would be premature to pursue discipline right now: "I am going to recommend this be given more time on the Talk page discussion before discipline is attempted." I have had accounts on MySpace, Facebook, and all sorts of places. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. Have you had any registered accounts on wikipedia in the past? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I'll begin discussing these spurious questions about who I am once the accusing parties making the accusations, Frank, Wikidemon, and DD2K, begin explaining why they reverted reasonable, well-sourced edits backed by dozens of sources, and admit they were practicing prejudicial censorship to WP:Own the page. It makes no sense for me to answer their questions when they will not answer mine. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I'll take that as a "yes". Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC) You have the right to interpret however you feel like, I leave my comments open-ended in this case. How you choose to misconstrue my words is your business, not mine. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I think we are done here. This is getting off-topic and should be in another section. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support appropriate topic ban for Hrafn. This editor seems to be unable to follow WP:CIVIL, and is continuously abusive. This edit is just one example. -- 202.124.74.76 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment From what I have seen of Hrafn's edits, they should be allowed to continue unfettered. I do not see unwillingness or inability to suffer fools gladly as any great crime against civility. I do see it as consistent with the character of an exopedian defending articles from undue influences and outright nonsensical content. I have not seen it rise to abusive levels, either out in the wild or in the examples given here in this discussion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support a GIANT TROUT for not only filing this, but filing it using such quasi-legal formatting. Please don't waste the community's time like this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I assume everyone noted that this is an Oppose to the proposal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban for Hrafn. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

IPs tagged as (suspected) sockpuppets

There are hundreds (thousands?) of IP addresses tagged as sockpuppets, suspected sockpuppets, or sockmasters. However, according to the policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (and specifically the linked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Blocking and tagging, registerd accounts should be tagged, but IP addresses shouldn't be tagged.

This is done for a number of reason, including the protection of privacy and the fact that an IP which has been tagged as a sockpuppet may now be used by someone completely unrelated to the problem.

Therefor, I propose to remove all sock and suspected sock tags from IP addresses; in the case were different registered accounts are tagged as socks of an IP address, to tag one of the registered accounts as the master instead; and to nominate for speedy deletion all categories which become empty due to the removal of said tags.

This is a rather drastic action which may raise some eyebrows if started without prior discussion, so please raise all objections and discuss any improvements. Fram (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with tagging IP talk pages, which is what the Blocking and tagging instructions used to say before someone changed it. Doc talk 08:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tagging IPs is actually rather important to tracking IP-hopping block evaders (who tend to operate from a limited range of addresses), and blanket removal of these tags would be really unhelpful for admins and editors who are trying to stop active block evaders. Instead of doing so, I'd suggest removing all the tags which are more than (say) six months old, or whatever the Checkuser criterion for the IP being "stale" is if it's a shorter duration. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For prolific ones, it's necessary to listify if we're going to remove the tags. e.g. Nangaparbat has been inactive for a year but came back again after that. Most of the people who've been tackling NP are currently inactive, so this will prevent any action. Same with Dewan357, if just a couple of editors aren't around and the IPs used list isn't available, then preventing further disruption is almost impossible. —SpacemanSpiff 08:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When was that changed? I have to agree with Doc through Spiff when they say that Fram's proposal would substantially hamper SPIs. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not disagreeing Nyttend, just saying that if this proposal is accepted, then we need an alternative to manage the resulting troubles.—SpacemanSpiff 12:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Doc & Nyttend - I've tagged IPs recently with 'suspected' and a CU has been unable to confirm due to not enough edits. Should the editor of an IP change from Mr X to Mrs Y, then we can remove the tag at that point - but I've oly seen it happen once in my 6+ years here. GiantSnowman 11:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Here was the change. It didn't seem to cause much of stir at the time, but I don't understand why IP talk pages shouldn't be tagged if need be. Doc talk 11:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of connecting User talk:58.69.10.203 with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 112.205.231.17? They have made one common edit, i.e. the second making a vandal edit, and the first making a (valid) correction in it 7 hours later, which makes it rather dubious that these are actual socks of each other. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC

Tagging errors, or overzealous tagging, by individual editors shouldn't necessarily mean that the entire concept of tagging an IP should be abandoned (and I have informed DeltaQuad of this thread, naturally). I have always agreed that IP's pages don't need to be tagged, and haven't tagged any since I learned what the policy said at one time; but tagging their talk pages is far less of a concern, as I see it. Doc talk 12:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The individual instance doesn't really interest me, it's just an example, the fact is that while GiantSnwoman may have seen only one problematic instance in 6 years, it isn't hard to find a lot more in the actual existing categories. Fram (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I did make that internal edit to SPI documentation. It was just what the clerks actively did at the time, which I also personally agree with. I'll make more comment below. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to tell whether User:202.56.7.138 is still in any way connected to User:119.30.39.37 and/or User:Azpayel (who hasn't edited in three years anyway). Never mind that the only IP address in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 203.202.70.202 is User:203.202.70.202 itself. The talk page indicates that probably User:203.171.92.36 was intended, who made one edit in 2006. User talk:195.195.190.4, a school IP, is linked to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Abdi342, who made three edits in 2008. The point of this sock tag and this category at this point in time is? Fram (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Aren't the IP's normally included in the archives of the SPI anyway? E.g. for User:Dewan357, you can find a (partial) list of his IP socks through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, which seems to contain more (and other) IP addresses than Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dewan357 does. The ranges are the important aspect here, not the actual addresses, as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Should my initial proposal be restricted to "after 6 months or older" and/or "only for small-scale sockfarms, i.e. 2 or 3 adresses at most"? Fram (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Even with that change, I would oppose. Not seeing any real benefit from it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Privacy? Plus, just imagine that you start editing (as an IP), and you turn out to be already tagged as a "suspected sockpuppet". Not really the welcoming atmosphere we try to create for new editors. The actual benefit of such IP sock cats is (certainly after a few months or a year) largely negligible, except perhaps for a few persistent IP-hopping socks to establish ranges and so on. But we shouldn't have many (now) useless and potentially harmful cats for the sake of a few useful ones. Fram (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to clarify. I don't see how this is a privacy issue at all. As to "welcoming," it's not welcoming for a person to get rolled into a dynamic IP that has vandalism notices or is blocked, either. Most IPs who've run into this aren't upset when they get an explanation. I don't this as compelling either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor's should not be tagged except as a result of an SPI per good faith. Nobody Ent 12:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In really, ridiculously obvious WP:DUCK cases, there needs to be no SPI before they are tagged. In fact, SPI would come to a complete standstill if they did. Doc talk 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• But take Nangparbat, since someone mentioned him. While I've been watching he's edited from four dozen BT IP addresses. The only information to note is that his ISP is BT - his IP address changes every 48 hours. What on earth is the point of tagging all the IPs - by now the first one probably belongs to Mavis Minnow, who just wants to make a few edits to pages on slugs, and discovers she's being accused as a sock of Nangparbat. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Accusing? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, would it be possible to have sockpuppet tags on IP user(talk)pages to have an expiry date? That would quickly empty the categories and then empty sock-categories could be deleted and/or would not need creation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• So, for IP pages, have a bot change {{sock}} (should be used on named accounts only) to {{ipsock}} (should be used on IP accounts only) (and vice versa) - and have for {{ipsock}} have an expiry date set (1 month or 6 months, or possibly custom, whatever we agree on). After expiry the tag changes appearance, is not categorised anymore, and the page can be blanked (alike Wikipedia:Old IP talk pages). Empty categories can be deleted then (if they were created). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If feasible, such a solution is fine by me as well of course. Fram (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't something like this programmed into {{prod}} (though that is substituted - but if it works there, it should be easy with parameters to the template as well). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Doesn't help anything, creates a lot of unnecessary work. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  To that I agree, Burpelson AFB - but people are saying here that invalid tags (and their resultant categories) are unnecessarily accusing and should be removed. Who needs a problem if you have a solution? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When tagging IPs as socks, a couple things need to be considered:

1. How static is the IP?
2. Privacy concerns: Is the blocked user clearly evading block from said IP?

As far as #1 is concerned, obviously if an IP is static enough and is known to have been used long enough by a blocked user, then by all means tag it. For dynamic IPs, it depends. I have seen users tag groups of IPs that form an entire IP range. I would personally prefer to find the range and then tag the user page of that IP range itself, but the other way is also fine, if it's useful. There are cases in which people evade block by using any means, meaning that IPs will be all over the place; in that case, it may not be useful to tag such IPs.

For #2, a user who openly edits or evades block through IPs are not afforded the same privacy expectations as those users who, for instance, accidentally edit while logged out. To elaborate, that user takes responsibility for whatever happens if he/she intentionally chooses to use an IP to evade a block, scrutiny, etc. Moreover, while CheckUsers do not publicly make connections between registered accounts and IPs via technical evidence, that does not stop anyone from making that connection publicly with behavioral evidence and editing patterns. --MuZemike 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• One point that appears to have been missed in the discussion is that the main benefit of tagging the IP is to be able to see the past contributions to compare with. For many of our prolific sockmasters, CU data is stale, so almost everything is based on behavioral evidence. Removing the IPsock tag is fine if there's another trail maintained to review contribution history for every sock farm. —SpacemanSpiff 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• In a way regarding point 1 of MuZemike, tagging very volatile IPs - at least a good handful of them (which may happen before one realises that the editor has the access to many IPs) does show that the sockmaster is all around the place. To go with SpacemanSpiff, maybe then a 'for the record' SPI should be created, linking all (or at least the ones detected) a user has used, after which the tagging from the individual IP pages can be blanked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Dirk and MuZemike that "for-the-record" SPIs are better than tagging each individual one. In some cases though, where a prolific sock such as Nangparbat, that is not a good idea because he can regenerate a new IP in less than 24 hours. So if it's got enough contributions that would be a good behavoiral comparison, then i'd consider filing an SPI, or if it's not dynamic, maybe tagging it, but I rarely tag IPs usually as the block log speaks for itself enough with the SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  @DeltaQuad - I meant to use the 'for the record' SPI's for the obvious WP:DUCK cases which normally do not go through SPI/CU. Most sock-farms have an SPI, but for some an SPI is not filed, just the obvious socks are tagged (and blocked). I would suggest that for those, instead of continuing tagging, a 'for the record' SPI is created later tying the master to the socks, and then most (if not all) of the tags on the actual socks can be blanked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale merge proposal

Foo was here. One article still has the tag, the other doesn't. I would close it myself but it seems like an admin should finalize it. I was never involved in either article, I just came across it researching grafitti.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Closed now. Jafeluv (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Changes evidence limits in arbitration cases

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Users who are named parties to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 1000 words in length. All other users submitting evidence to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 500 words in length. All evidence must be presented on the case's /Evidence subpage. Evidence submissions significantly over the appropriate limit may be refactored by an arbitration clerk at the discretion of the clerks and Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 06:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Backlog at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests needs some love, it is currently heavily backlogged with about 70 requests, many more the a week old. While responding to semi-protected edit requests is not limited to administrators, I'm mentioning it here as responding to requests is an activity that watchers of this page are likely to be able to help out with. It is important we try to reduce the backlog, as requested semi-protected edits significantly reduce the negative impact of semi-protection on IP editors (and new accounts), and failing to respond in a timely manner undermines that. Monty₈₄₅ 04:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Highly recommended. You get to see quality discussion like "Just admit that my star of David is bigger than yours." Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

request

In this article most og it source is out of reach or is not available that the article information can not check to it source and can not use and refer in other wiki, please check article and correct information. Thanks. --H.b.sh (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to understand what your concern is, but this doesn't appear to require intervention from admins. You may wish to ask for assistance at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation endorsing Access2Research

Hey all

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse Access2Research and its petition to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the FAQ, and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This surprises me — I thought requiring open access was already a requirement for federally-funded research. Nyttend (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If only :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User ban

Resolved

 – The user being complained about was blocked as a sockmaster a week ago, SPI filed here as it's pretty obvious the complainant is linked

The activities of User "Earth Exploding Live" first came to my attention when they trolled and defaced my blog on blogspot. They insulted me and gave out my personal information. Naturally, I reported them immediately to Google and they banned/deleted the accounts. They then pointed to this page, and said that they were someone called "Earth Exploding Live" and that I should propose a ban for them, which seems reasonable given what they did to ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavinKline132 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things. 1) Users don't get blocked or banned for activities occurring solely off-wiki. Sucks that whoever this is has been fucking with you, but Wikipedia won't ban someone based on your say-so about something that happened on another site. 2) The user (Earth Exploding Live (talk · contribs)) was blocked a week ago anyway. → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And a third thing: seems pretty obvious to me that you are EEL, as they would already know they have been permanently blocked from editing here. Stop wasting our time. → ROUX ₪ 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, why is it obvious this user is EEL? Deleted contribs? CU? Something else? Egg Centric 20:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

EEL was blocked a week ago. The complainant showed up today to request a ban. Do you really think that either 1) JavinKline waited a week to come here, or 2) that EEL didn't know they were blocked? → ROUX ₪ 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WRT Q1: I've absolutely no idea. I could see someone who ran a part time blog waiting a week, sure. Bear in mind I have no idea about the back story of this (except what I'm about to say), so if you know something about the blogs they've been targetting that makes this point ridiculous, apologies. Moving onto Q2 - completely agree, I'm 100% sure that I know that EEL knew they were blocked cause I remember seeing them on AN or ANI and telling em that there was no point in what they were doing cause they would be WP:DENYd. Egg Centric 23:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless the IP action afterwards makes it extremely likely you are correct. So what can I say? Sorry if you thought I was doubting you - I was just questioning you, and I still think t'was the right thing to do cause I still don't see how you could tell... Egg Centric 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I could tell because I have this thing called a brain. I use it to think. Approximately three femtoseconds of deduction brought me to that conclusion. → ROUX ₪ 21:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

…and rather than take the high road, you respond condescendingly. Classy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unusual page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard

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.

Redirected and protected. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello everyone, i just came across this unusual page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard. Looking at the page history, it isn't being monitored for anything like vandalism and only 4 user talk pages link there which are User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive10, User talk:Cecropia/Archive 10, User:ReDM0oN/cool3 and User talk:70.234.132.146. I don't think that this page actually needs to be kept for any meaningful purpose as the page just has the history of linking the redirect itself and contains inappropriate content in it . The page should rather be deleted without any issues as it contains personal attacks in it. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Um - what page are you actually trying to report here? GiantSnowman 11:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

After i posted the query, the page had been redirected by User:Doc9871 to this page. Please check the page edit history and you all will know everything that i said above. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Doc hasn't edited the page since your original post. GiantSnowman 11:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard (note the different placement of the apostrophe), a redirect to this page, was in a vandalized state but has now been fixed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I have protected that page to prevent further abuse. GiantSnowman 11:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It gets hacked every three years so we FPP??? Nobody Ent 11:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just a redirect, and not one that's likely to invite any legitimate edit. Plus it has absolutely no watchers aside from Giant and Doc as a result of today's events. Full doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and trust me when I say I'm usually the one who has a problem with those). Equazcion ^(talk) 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically what Equazcion said - it's a page that should never be edited anyway due to its redirect nature, and it's one that, given where it redirects to, could be a viable target for abuse, that wouldn't be caught. GiantSnowman 12:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

But isn't deleting the page a better option as this is an unnecessary redirect ? TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Upon further review -- based on how long the hack was undetetected: Never mind Nobody Ent 12:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I removed the vandalism that was on the redirect page after seeing this thread. It probably could have been done by the thread opener - be bold! It's a redirect, in case someone misspells "Administrator" as "Administator" (leaving out one "r"), as I see it. Doc talk 11:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes see! I was talking about this page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard and not Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Doc9871 had redirected that page to this one 2 minutes after this post so that's why GiantSnowman you had got redirected to this page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard and were checking it's history :). Now Edgar181 has solved the problem. But i am still not sure that whether the page should be redirected here or deleted ? And there is another revision that needs to be deleted, this one which is still left out [133] as it is inappropriate just like that later one. And Doc9871 i would have easily done it but the page was just not right and i had to report it here :). Thank you all for the quick response and solving the problem! TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I missed that as well - but, then again, I can't remember the last time I spelled "Administrators' noticeboard" as anything other than WP:AN. Good catch. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

"The wrong version" w/ BLP-violation

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

Resolved

 – Immediate issue resolved. Anyone interested in the details/merits can continue this on the list's talkpage. Ahéheeʼ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Native American women of the United States currently makes a claim about a living person that is unsubstantiated. Please correct this. WP:BLP overrides "the wrong version". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved in this dispute. Looking over the talk page, it appears this dispute is over Elizabeth Warren. Apparently, she self-identifies as a Native American[134] but others dispute this. I take no opinion on whether she should be on the list, but this request seems more like an attempt to win a content dispute then an actual effort to protect a living person. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that most of the entries have no sources I can only guess they were looking at this one. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In her past, Elizabeth Warren listed herself as having Cherokee heritage, from one of her ancestors. This past action, laughable as it appears today given her lily-white complexion, is being used by a small but vocal band of editors who want to rub her nose in her past mistakes. The inclusion in the list is politically motivated; an effort to hurt Warren. That is what the BLP issue is. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What does her skin colour have to do with it? I know a little girl with skin almost as pale as mine and blonde hair but she is an Inuk. All my kids and grandchildren look kabloonak but are all Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've edited through protection to remove Warren. That article is not a platform to push a political campaign talking point about a living person, and editors using it as such should be gently re-educated that this site is not a venue for trying to score political points (or perhaps sanctioned, if they have a history of doing so). I have no opinion on whether the "Native American" issue is notable and relevant enough for mention in Elizabeth Warren's biography, but it is clearly inappropriate to edit-war over a list article to try to maximize the visibility of what is clearly an election-season attack line. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I haven't kept as much an eye on this list as I keep on List of Native American actors. I will try to do better in the future and have left a note about this on the talkpage of the article in question. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Why exactly did you remove this, when Warren herself still makes and stands by the claim? Regardless of what you feel about editors intentions, articles like http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76756.html show she still self identifies this way. Arkon (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, yeah, that's why we have List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry (there are so many people claiming Cherokee-stories, it does warrant a list), she's on it. The list in question is for tribal members as defined by the nations themselves; and she's not a citizen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Gotcha, there are apparently as many lists as there are people self identifying as Cherokee :) Anyway, still don't see this as either a BLP issue or worthy of a thread here. Least it's resolved. Arkon (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

"Vandalism"?

Retracted per discussion on my talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A relatively new user, User:Kairportflier, has warned an IP about vandalism, jumping straight to level 3, when the IP's recent contibutions do not appear to be unhelpful, and at the very least has acted in good faith. This user has also consistently removed queries from his user page, including a query of mine. Advice? (apologies if I have erred in the posting of this here, I have never done it before, but thought it was probably the right thing to do).--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Check the about 10 airlines the IP abbreviated International. At wiki:Airline we had a long conversation about the info box on airline pages and found that now raping was all that was needed and this user went around that which is found to be vandalism. I am not the only other user who found these edits vandalism, go to Alaska Airlines and you can see another active wiki:airline user reverted his similar edits. I will say, I over did it going to a Level 3 right away but none the less this IP vandalized multiple airline pages. Kairportflier (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue

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.

---

Sondra Locke had two birth years listed in her article. I removed both. There was an open discussion on it. Having both years listed implies that she may have falsified her birth year. One year is wrong and could be due to a typo that some sources are using. Leaving both years implies a liabilty issue that she may have falsified one and it wasn't caused by a typo.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) This is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talk page, there's nothing for admins to do here. (2) If there were something for admins to do, it should have been posted at WP:AN/I where "incidents" go. (3) Two birthdates do not in any way imply falsification by the subject, it merely means we have two different dates from different reliable sources. Obviously, she wasn't born twice, so one or the other is wrong, or maybe both of them are. But we don't decide which is, we present the supported facts we have at hand, and keep looking for a better source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If a fact can't be proven on a BLP it is too be removed speedily. One year is not a fact so both should be removed until one is decided on. Edit wars are already started there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The material is not "contentious" and both years are well sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• They may be well sourced but one is wrong. It would be the same as saying she was born in either Kansas or New York. If we can't decide on which is correct, then neither should be included. It just makes us look like we either can't do research or we can't decide which research is more correct. We can't create facts on a BLP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this