Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250

Template:WikiProject United States needs updates done

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

---

There is a massive list of updates that need to be implemented for Template:WikiProject United States. All the changes are done in the templates sandbox, they just need to be implemented. These changes have been building for a month and I have twice removed an edit protected request template from this template after it went unanswered for a week. There are quite a few more edits that need to be done to this template still. Its bullshit that I have to even ask for these to be implemented. I should be able to do it myself and get credit for the work I perform. If some admin can find the 11 seconds time it takes in their busy lives to implement these changes it would be greatly appreciated by an editor who is wondering more and more why I even bother editing anymore. Its so hard just to contribute I really don't know what the hell I'm still doing here since its clear my time isn't appreciated. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are not getting a response from the {{Edit protected}} template, the simple solution is to flag down any admin on his or her talk page and ask for the edit to be performed. Orlady (talk · contribs) has implemented the changes you requested. --auburnpilot talk 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, I didn't see the request on this page before making the edit. I saw your template-talk-page request while scrolling through a couple of days' worth of watchlist activity. As I noted on the talk page, the complicated way that you presented the request was a deterrent to making the edit. The edit itself was simple, but it took me a lot more than 11 seconds to figure out what you wanted to have done (and verify that I was interpreting the request correctly). In the future, I suggest that you package your request as a simple statement of what you need an admin to do (and please omit the editorial comments about "bullshit", etc.). That's likely to get much faster action. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change but the easy and best way would be if I could make the edit myself. Someone with 400, 000 edits and over 6 years on the site shouldn't have to ask for someone else to implement their work. The reason I phrased it the way I did was so the admin would be able to verify the changes were correct and that is how it has been asked to be done in the past. Ironically, it took over 30 days for the changes to get done, less than 3 hours after the bullshit comment so it would seem that comment actually helped. I shouldn't even do the change at all, I should leave it to the admins to do the work rather than take the credit but it won't get done at all if I do that. So you'll excuse me if I have a bad attitude that I am required to do the work that admins refuse to do or don't have the technical ability to do, while the admins take the credit for that work and then am told I can't be trusted because I don't do any admin related work, because I never get credit for the admin work I do. Its extremely frustrating, insulting and stupid. Kumioko (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Kumioko, if you want people to react positively to you, you might want to consider being a paragon of good behavior regardless of any past history. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

UAA Overflow

WP:UAA has many bot reported and user reported issues that need resolving one way or annother. If a Admin could see their way into mopping the reports up, that'd be great. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review

I noticed today that Wikipedia:Move review has very few watchers. Could we get a few more people be it admins or not watching this page. I dont care if anyone joins the current debate(s) - just thinking that a page like this could (should) get some more editors looking over it. Wikipedia:Move review - watchers 55 - 6 are new. I have been here many many years and had never seen the page before - I believe this may be the same reality for many people.Moxy (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am now watching the page. Might I suggest that you contact the editor of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and ask if they are interested in featuring the move review process? That is just the sort of thing they like to cover. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be a deficiency in attention for the current review. :-) Watchlisting the page isn't very helpful as watchers will still miss the discussions as they are on transcluded monthly logs. DRV has the same problem and I don't know what the answer should be.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• The answer is to have review discussions on their own pages, and to transclude them directly. As per MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

E-Cat topic ban

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

---

I wish to appeal the topic ban shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Parallel#Topic_ban_from_cold_fusion_and_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

What I object to is Andrea Rossi being declared guilty before being found innocent. I have no interest in advocating Leonardo Corporation products. I will be eighty later this year so even if the E-Cat works it is unlikely to do me much good. I objected to the editors refusing to correct referenced errors and the piece as it stands has factual errors as well as those of Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality. Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud. This is unfortunate as I read up to 7000 people seek guidance from Wikipedia on this topic per day.

It has been suggested I don’t understand what argumentum ad hominem means. I do. AndyTheGrump denies it, but he still has not answered the various points I brought up, in particular the referenced errors about Rossi still believing nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper(1), the cherry picked quotation from the stale dated PopSci article, written before the third party tests, and possibly libelous defamation of his character, suggesting he is a criminal and a conman. Instead he goes after the messenger saying that I am clueless, a sock puppet, have threatened others (which I haven’t), that I should “go away and learn about how science works,” asking I have some connection to Rossi or the testers (I don’t) and accusing me of using the talk page as a soapbox.

My major complaint is that the article is not neutral. Give mainstream views prominence, but at least give something from the other side. Don’t cherry pick the most negative bits from the articles quoted as was done for Featherstone’s piece, giving an erroneous view.(2) This is not even the current article from PopSci that is much more favorable.(3) AndyTheGrump gives much weight to LENR being fringe science, but I believe it to be emerging from this category when Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center says LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt, as does Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and others.

There have been two independent tests of the E-Cat funded by the reputable Swedish Elforsk R&D organization equivalent to our EPRI(4,5,6) It might have been better to call them engineering tests in order to avoid the misunderstanding by some editors, who felt it should have been a scientific test to determine the physics of the reaction. The test was never designed to do that and was conducted properly as an engineering test, as I know from firsthand experience with scanning IR instruments. These tests showed the E-Cat worked with a high degree of confidence. Secondary reports by Engineering News(7) Forbes(8) A further continuous six month test to start this Summer has been funded by Elforsk.

AndyTheGrump made much of me posting a long excerpt from Engineering News. To start with, I have permission from Kenneth Creamer, CEO of Engineering News to do this and secondly, like the piece I wrote myself, these were trial balloons floated in an effort to reach a compromise through discussion. I had no intention of showing Leonardo Corp’s address in the final piece, this was an attempt to show the E-Cat was real and not “fringe science.” You may indeed order a 1 MW plant from there with four months delivery and currently they are offering a 1 MW plant free to a user in Europe on the understanding it will be open to the public.

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers at LENR-CANR.org. I find it likely that the group-think conclusion here that it is impossible to overcome the Coulomb barrier will prevail over the experimental evidence, but of course it shouldn’t. I am more interested in getting the article corrected than being an editor.

References. 1. Rossi’s blog http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html 2. Old Popular Science article http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box?single-page-view=true Used in Wiki, written before the 3rd party test. 3. Current PopSci article http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says 4. Elforsk Primary source http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.elforsk.se/&prev=/search?q=Elforsk 5. Test Report by Dr. Levi http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf 6. Test report by Penon pdf file. http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf 7. Engineering News http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 Secondary source 8. Andy Gibbs Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/ Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any modification of the topic ban. It seems clear to me that Parallel is here to push a fringe viewpoint. This appeal shows that the editor has every intent of continuing on the same path. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud" - that's because it doesn't, and while fraud is an unacceptable word to use due to WP:BLP, 'completely unscientific woo woo bullshit' is perfectly fine. When and if (never and not gonna happen) Rossi actually submits the device to real peer review--that means no restrictions--that will be the time to discuss this snake oil as being useful.

Here's a thing for you: the whole basis of science relies on replicating results. Every single scientist in the world who has discovered something publishes their results so that every other scientist in the world can replicate or disprove them. That is how science works. Rossi does not work this way.

Obviously I oppose lifting this topicban. I said on ANI, every single person who advocates for this spammy scammy bullshit should just be banned from Wikipedia on sight. NPOV doesn't mean swallowing crap. — The Potato Hose 19:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. Editor is clearly here solely for the purpose of promoting a fringe idea and product, and has not shown the slightest whiff of a hint of a trace of intent to edit constructively and collaboratively. Has wasted lots of editor time already. Enough is enough. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. This topic ban was just instituted after a discussion on ANI. Parallel took part in that discussion and it's not even archived yet. It seems sort of pointless to appeal it immediately, going back over the same arguments. Parallel, you'll have a better chance to get the ban lifted if you first spend six months or so editing other topics. If people get the impression that you're here to contribute to Wikipedia, rather than merely to push your views on a particular subject, they'll be more likely to eventually unban you. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC).

• Oppose. It seems self-evident to me from the above that Parallel has failed to understand the reason for his topic ban - that he has repeatedly abused Wikipedia facilities in order to promote a fringe topic, with complete disregard to Wikipedia policies. To address a few specific points Parallel raised, it is simply untrue that I have accused him of threatening others - it was admin Edison who made the comments regarding what he considered to be a threat, not me as I have already pointed out to Parallel. Regarding the claims that Rossi is being 'libelled', as soon as Parallel made this suggestion, I advised him to raise the issue at WP:BLPN. He did not do so, instead continuing with vague assertions. As for comments about copper, I have no idea what Rossi's latest version of how the E-Cat works is, or how he thinks copper is involved - it simply doesn't matter unless it is published in reliable sources, something the Parallel has failed to provide. As for the rest, Parallel seems incapable of grasping what WP:FRINGE means, what we mean by releable sources, and why, when confronted with extraordinary claims regarding a supposedly comercially available LENR/cold fusion device, Wikipedia places the burden of proof firmly with those making the claims, and those promoting them, and unless and until such proof is available from third-party sources, it is a requirement of policy that we assert no credibility to the claims until mainstream science accepts them. Parallel seems unable to grasp the simple fact that Wikipedia is intended to follow scientific advances, not lead them, and that Wikipedia is simply not the place to promote fringe devices. If the E-Cat ever sees the light of day, Wikipedia will cover it - but until then, its promoters will have to promote it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Parallel argues the content again rather than addressing the behavior which led to the ban. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Potato Hose. wrt Neutrality, contentious articles will never be neutral to everyone. You (parallel) want it changed to appear neutral in your eyes, but that may not be neutral in the eyes of others. Until this has been fully independently verified, (i.e. independently replicated and run) by other scientists, then it will be fringe, and the article should reflect that. We cannot claim the E-Cat is a cold fusion/LENR without reliable third party tests, and there are none.Martin451 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work". Wikipedia may have a reputation for occasional unreliability but at least in this article it's completely accurate. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Norden1990 Harassment

I feel threatened and intimidated, User:Norden1990 behavior make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me. This user also wrote some dubious nationalistic nonsense on my Talk page, Norden1990 has done a lot personal attacks against me (frustrated, chauvinist etc.) and a constructive discussion is really very difficult with this user. I wrote recently also ANI about his harmful speech[1], but now he is trying to discourage me from editing entirely. His last work in the 8th June 13:17 - 17:42 was the deletion step by step of my contributions[2]. So let's analyze his undo-edits:

• Rajka[3] > User:Norden1990 wrote: they are Slovak citizens and not the Slovak ethnic minority in Hungary (so they are not Hungarian citizens) His statement is like from the end of 19th century or communism. Norden1990 is trying to make second-class citizens or some refugees. European Union policies aim to ensure the free movement of people + we have Schengen Area. Slovaks do not need Hungarian id cards or passports. Only nationalists from Jobbik have problems with Slovaks in Rajka[4]. I used 2 sources where is clearly written - Slovaks and the term "Slovak citizens" has a logical error too > Hungarian citizens where 19.4% are Slovaks + "Slovak citizens" where 50% are inhabitants of Rajka, so total Slovak population is ??%. Ridiculously. They live and pay bills there, they are owner of homes and estates. Yes, they are all Slovaks in Hungary. On the WP is not the place for first-class citizens and second-class citizens or for discrimination.
• Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1538)[5] > this is clear bad faith, I reverted questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.179.152 back to stable version. User:Norden1990 did not use citation needed template, but he deleted very well known fact which has thousands of sources.
• Adam František Kollár > I edited dubious edit of questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.161.19 and then User:Norden1990 reverted my contrib[6] back to IP 178.164.161.19 version. User Norden1990 used anachronistic dubious POV names. I used according to NPOV in good faith accurate historical names in the multilingual and multiethnic country[7]. My version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Neosolium) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Banská Bystrica"). Norden1990's version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Besztercebánya) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Besztercebánya"). My version has logical etymological content and name "Besztercebánya" was valid and used only in 1863 – 1913 in the period of Magyarization. And another Norden1990's names: Selmecbánya 1863 - 1873, Nagyszombat 1863 – 1913, Liptószentmiklós 1863 – 1913.
• University of Trnava[8] > User:Norden1990 wrote: English name is enough in this article - He added only anachronistic names for Trnava, other terms this user deleted. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. According to NPOV in good faith I added latin name for Archbishop of Esztergom and Pázmány, because Latin was official language[9]. I added Pázmány's Slovak name because the article is about University of Trnava in the Slovakia. I also added neutral correct historical names for Slovak city Trnava. User:Norden1990 recently wrote that "The mention of other name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." in the article Giglovce[10] (with typical editing habits against my contribs), where 0,00% Magyars live, Norden1990's added name is totally unknown, unimportant, it was used in the period of Magyarization + there are also other names, but he added only this one. And this is aftermath[11]. Indeed quality of the article first.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Youreallycan ban appeal at AN/I

Since a few people in that thread have commented that ban/unban discussions should be held here and not AN/I, I'm adding a courtesy note here to point interested AN readers to that discussion. 28bytes (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Need advice/help dealing with an IP

184.20.209.241 (talk · contribs) has been bugging me and several other editors regarding the My Little Pony tv + comic series, specifically begging "these must be for children, so they can't be dark stories", or "if this is going to be dark, they can't be for kids, and should be marked as adult stories." I don't know whether the user is trolling , a poor English speaker, a child, or the like, but this is all the user has done and is starting to get to a point of bothersome. I do note that this user has apparently been aggravating people on an MLP wikia and is trying to bring that "fight" here. His actions certainly aren't disruptive, but they are annoying.

I don't know what action can be taken here, since by good faith I would think the user is just confused, but this has been going on far too long. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like normal trolling to me. My Little Pony is a common target for trolls as its fans tend to be young and easily riled. If they seriously have issues with the show's plot (or whatever) they'd stop watching or write in to the people who actually make the show, not bug random wiki editors. I see they had a final warning already last month so if they're still at it it's block time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

With a splash of AGF, I'd expect that the IP is someone very young who is mixing up Wiki for WikiA. On a lot of Wikias forum like discussions are pretty common and generally allowed. Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Kafziel has blocked the IP. Blackmane (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Referring to the struck part:] Not possible. One of their edit summaries specifically references some kind of feud with another editor on MLP Wikia (who is, in their words, "crazy and dumb"). It's pretty clear that they're trolling the MLP Wikia too, presumably with the same or similar material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong belief that the editor is trolling. As I commented on their page, their claims seem to be inconsistent and they keep going back and forth. Furthermore, at one stage they kept adding nonsense to the article claiming the comic series featured extreme violence, gore, sex etc. Perhaps they could have really been so confused once, but after it was pointed out to them it did not have this, they appeared to briefly accepted this before adding the claim again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah they're not consistent at all, alternating between pretending to know nothing about the comic obviously being familiar with its plot details. But even besides that their main claim (that there's an official "adult" My Little Pony comic with lots of graphic sex and gore) is so silly that it could only possibly be trolling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The troll has been appropriately blocked. Trolls are bad enough, but trolls who try to confuse children are worse than usual. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the block expired and he's back again [12]. I've asked the blocking admin to consider a re-block, if that's not done first from here. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked them again. Any benefit of the doubt is just about run dry at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hence my striking of my initial comment, though valid on the surface, but on going through the rest of IP's contribs it's pretty obvious it's jsut the latest round of MLP trolling. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Inactive possible sockpuppets of a banned user

I've a question that this seems the most appropriate board to ask this on. As part of WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up, I've come across a few accounts that look like they may have been Qworty sockpuppets, but have also been inactive for a year or more. What is the proper way to deal with such accounts? Tag them? Report them to some board or other? Or just assume that since they're inactive they're not harmful? Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for certain what we should do, and I am not an administrator, but I think we should just tag them as suspected sockpuppets. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty/Archive, Dennis Brown made it very clear that he thought it was not a good idea to tag inactive suspected sockpuppet accounts. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would just leave them be. The odds that any of those accounts would be resurrected seem pretty slim to me. 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You could create an edit filter to flag them if they start becoming active. Not perfect solution but its possible. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not worth the server resources IMO. A pair of human eyes from time to time should suffice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive user

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

---

This is a minor but ongoing issue where perhaps an attempt by someone else will have more effect than my efforts have had so far.

User:Candleabracadabra, an editor since April 2011 with some 6,000 edits, is a regular creator of new articles. Despite multiple requests, his creations don't have any categories and don't even have the "uncat" tag either. Considering that he has (including many redirects) created 1269 articles, which as far as I can see all had that problem, I believe this is not really acceptable.

I have noted this problem at his talk page three times (at User talk:Candleabracadabra#Categories; 24 May, 27 May, and 3 June), but he hasn't responded at all nor changed his behaviour (see e.g. Mercantile Bank Building (Jonesboro, Arkansas)), so I'm looking for a good soul who is willing to give it another try or who can find another approach with better results. Fram (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Treat them as you would any other editor who continues with disruptive editing despite warnings. GiantSnowman 09:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what I try to avoid. It seems a pity to start blocking without trying at least one more time if another approach might help. Getting his attention and cooperation without needing to block is better, and perhaps if he notices that multiple people have the same concerns, he will change his approach. If not, then blocking still remains as an option of course. Fram (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had experience with one editor, who was constantly adding unreferenced material to BLPs - the info not controversial and later verified to be true, but it was still a problem. Over a period of months numerous users tried to communicate with the editor, using templated and personal messages. Nothing got through to him. Then one day enough was enough and he was blocked (I can't recall if I blocked him or another Admin) but it worked - it made him realise the seriousness of the situation, and now he communicates and adds references. GiantSnowman 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I don't rule out blocking as a last resort. But blocking is harsh, and I wouldn't want a productive editor with some minor problems leaving over being blocked without trying more gentle approaches first. A block may improve his interactions, but it may also piss him off and make him leave Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an admin (User:Dennis Brown?) once had good results by plastering their talk page with a ridiculously *huge* stopsign to get their attention. --69.95.203.191 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In what sense is a failure to add categories to an article disruptive? Disruptive of what? Eric Corbett 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is s/he removing the {uncat} template once it is added? It strikes me as not actually disruptive or damaging for an editor to prefer to leave category work for others. Wikipedia is a collaborative, volunteer project, and we don't expect or demand any editor – new or not – to do all the work on articles. Looking at, e.g. Mercantile Bank Building (Jonesboro, Arkansas), I see a reasonable, competently-written, credibly-sourced one-paragraph stub about a historical building, about which we did not have an article before.

Presumably, other editors will arrive over time to expand the article with images, more information, additional sources...and category tags. To accuse Candleabracadabra of 'disruptive editing' and to suggest harrassing them with repeated nuisance templates as a valid solution – let alone suggest blocking someone who is quietly and competently producing good, constructive content – because s/he doesn't do category grunt work is ridiculous.

If you want an {uncat} template on every new article, write a bot to do it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TOAT, look at it this way instead - an editor is deliberately ignoring sound advice (which doesn't make for a collaborative project) and every single time they create a stub, other editors have to clean up after them by adding categories / tagging as uncat. That is disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do others need to 'clean up after them'? Genuine question, whats the actual downside to not having either a CAT/uncat? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... please don't go through the dozens of stubs, articles, etc to see if I always added a CAT to it or you'll want to block me too! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the "B" word has been mentioned in the context of an editor who doesn't dot every I and cross every T is troublesome indeed. The editor concerned may not give a shit about categories - so what? This issue doesn't even begin to touch the troublesome threshold. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:YFA - "Every article should be in one or more Wikipedia categories". GiantSnowman 16:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we really going with "Your first article" as grounds for a block now? C'mon, this is not a big deal. (Also, I can't remember if I've ever added cats to my paltry collection of articles; I rather doubt it.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see how this is mildly irritating, and I see no problem with reaching out to find other editors to try a different approach, but this strikes me as absolutely not block-worthy. Where do we draw the line on this type of thing? Shall we block people for not providing images too? Or not adding infoboxes? Its irritating, but not a necessity, and not a blockable issue. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say categories are a necessity. For example, I create lots of articles; before doing so, I often check a category the new article will be placed in to ensure an article on the same subject does not already exist. That prevents wasting both my time (in creating a duplicate article) and that of others who have to clean up after me (delete/merge etc.) GiantSnowman 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I try to add a few of the most obvious categories when I create articles too, I know what you mean in practice. That being said, I don't see a policy supporting their necessity. (I would think something more direct than WP:YFA would be needed to make that argument.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Suggesting that a highly productive editor should/could/might be/ blocked for not adding a category is so daft that those mooting the idea need to take a long hard look at themselves - and maybe add a few categories to the articles rather than honing their block button. Leaky Caldron 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Who has said this editor should be blocked? GiantSnowman 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Treat them as you would any other editor who continues with disruptive editing despite warnings. GiantSnowman 09:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC), from here. I mean, yes, you technically didn't use the word "block", but there's really no other way to interpret that; I mean, what else do we do with disruptive editors who've ignored warnings? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Depends how long they've been around / how many friends they have made ;) GiantSnowman 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, this guy hasn't made enough friends, given that we're here, so yeah, lame block suggestions are lame. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The recent furore about category:American novelists indicated that the category system is quite dysfunctional. You can be castigated if you put someone in a category and now you can be threatened if you don't. "That's some catch, that Catch-22". Warden (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• A gross and incorrect over-simplification of both the recent issue with categories, and this current thread. Kudos. GiantSnowman 16:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Other suggestions welcome - how do others suggest we proceed then? Saying "it's not an issue" is a cop-out, what you really mean is "it's not an issue for me cos I don't care / don't have to clean up the mess." GiantSnowman 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess my (and perhaps others') point is: why is it considered a "mess" for an article to not be in a category? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I seriously cannot believe I am having to link administrators to Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization. Brb, off to bang my head against my desk for 5 mins. GiantSnowman 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, no need to bang your head: you didn't need to link that page, as it didn't answer my question. Does it say in there that articles must have categories? I read it through (again) and don't see anything that says that. I guess the closest thing is the "What should I do if I see an article without any categories?" section, but that doesn't say anything about warning editors or anything like that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we stop using categories or anything. Just that it's not that big of a deal when they're not there. Its not a life and death, BLP type issue. Either it will be fixed eventually by random editors, or it won't...which has no repercussions beyond not being categorized. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Writing an otherwise fine article and opting to let other people categorize it is perfectly acceptable, and is in no way disruptive. To even think of blocking an editor for leaving categorization for others is way out of line. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there is something worse than an article without categories: an article with bad categories. RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the notion that an editor who doesn't do everything, and expects others to clean up can be infuriating in some cases. However, the cases I'm thinking of are editors who contribute little more than a title and a sentence just barely asserting notability. It may take more work from editors to check it out, search to see if there are references to support the notability than it might for editors to start from scratch without the tiny stub. While the editor may well have been contributing with such a start in 2001, it is 2013, and the world is different.

That said, I see a gulf between that example and the contributions of this editor. I do not know why the editor does not add categories. I happen to think our category system is quite poor, and hate to use it. I can easily believe that some editor may feel more strongly and refuse to use it. If it is done as a form of protest, I'm sorely tempted to join.

Are articles better when they have categories? Sure I can accept that. I don't object to the YFA advice that articles should have categories, but there is a difference between stating the goals for articles and stating the minimum acceptable standards for an editor's contribution to an article. I think articles ought to be spelled correctly. That doesn't mean I support a block for editors who make a spelling mistake. I do not view an editor who makes a spelling mistake as disruptive. Articles ought to have proper grammar. Editors who fail should not be termed "disruptive".

The editor has been asked to add cats, and has failed to explain why they do not. Time to shrug and move on. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The barrier for entry is high enough without adding more mandates to editors wanting to create an article - no need to make it more complex. There are lots of editors willing to spend the 5 seconds it takes to use HotCat and add appropriate categories. Why hassle this editor? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to write something but SPhilbrick already wrote it. This editor just seems uninterested in adding categories or talking about categories. I don't find our current implementation of categories very good or useful either. I was wondering whether this editor was disruptively uncommunicative in general and that does not seem to be the case: I took a swing through the editor's edit count and history of using Talk pages; the editor seems to use Talk pages less frequently than many others but by no means never, and the Talk page contribs made are perfectly suitable. I have seen where administrator intervention is needed in cases of a disruptive editor who won't respond to requests to cut it out, but that doesn't seem to apply here. "Shrug and move on" seems about right. Zad68 19:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, the best situation is a bot (or software feature) that would automatically mark an uncategorised page as uncategorised. Uncategorised pages that aren't marked as such are problems because we can't find them easily; having them marked automatically would remove the problems caused by this editor's unwillingness to mark them as uncategorised. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How about Special:UncategorizedPages? DMacks (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The most problematic factor for me (and the one which caused me to start this thread) is the unresponsiveness of this editor. If someone comes to your talk page with genuine concerns about your editing, the least you can do is reply. If he had explained why he doesn't want to add categories, that might have been sufficient. Like I indicated, simply adding the "uncat" tag if he is for some reason not comfortable adding a cat is also acceptable. But simply always ignoring a guideline (Wikipedia:Categorization: "Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category.") and refusing to discuss this is not really the way that things are supposed to happen here. The whole blockworthy/not blockworthy discussion is a distraction (and I note that we have blocked people over refusing to sign their posts, which doesn't even affect the mainspace). Fram (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think reaching out to the editor on their talk page, as you did, was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and it certainly would have been polite of them to reply, but if they don't want to discuss it, it doesn't strike me as something we ought to (try to) force them to. There are editors who spend most if not all of their Wikipedia time categorizing things; it stands to reason that there would be some editors with no interest in categorization whatsoever, and it seems that we have found one such editor. 28bytes (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Fram (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I may have missed it in the above, and the links to the category help pages are not really helpful on this, what is the disruptive or negative aspect of not having a category. I have seen lots of reasons why it is helpful to have one, but not a reason why it matters if it does not. Apart from a vague 'it might be difficult to find the article'. I can count on one hand the number of times I have used the category system to 'find' an article. Thats what search is for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For me, categories are useful to find related articles, both as a reader and as an editor (for cleanup and maintenance reasons); I have found quite a few hoaxes and duplicate articles thanks to categories. While lists have their use as well, categories get "automatically" maintained (i.e., just add the cat to the page and it appears in the category: delete the article and it is gone, and so on; with lists, you have more extra work (but the possibility for extra information as well)). For readers, they are a way to find articles they didn't know existed. Without categories, I probably would never have found André Van De Werve De Vorsselaer, and noticed that it is badly capitalized. Thanks to Category:Flemish artists, I just came across the oddly named Hermann Naiwinx. With some research, I found another article at the more plausible title Herman Naiwincx. Duplicates? I need to look a bit further to be sure, but I would probably not have found them without categories. Fram (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One might also consider editors, such as purely copy editors like myself, who don't edit within any particular area in WP and as such categories are largely ignored anyway. Blackmane (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Imagine an editor creating a few hundred articles without standard wiki layout, e.g. not using our section header system but using "bold" or "big" tags to create section headers. You can still read the articles, you won't get a TOC but not everyone cares for a TOC anyway. Would you allow that editor to continue doing this, even after multiple requests to use section headers instead? It is not because categories (or section headers, or...) are not needed for some groups of editors that we should ignore editors who consistenly refuse to apply them. Fram (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken templates, infoboxes, extra Big tags, and the like... all of those affect the ability of readers to actually get information out of an article. Categories, or a lack thereof, do not. The issues are separate. I keep having the mental image of one of us standing behind this editor with a riding crop, smacking their hand whenever they create an article without a category. And that bothers me. Half of our cleanup tasks are sorting out what less experienced editors did - and it has always been thus. There is no easier way to tell this editor to go fuck off and leave than to block him/her for not doing something completely optional. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The introduction of the visual editor, which is happening soon, seems likely to result in many new articles which will lack advanced features because the editor does not support them. In my experience, it takes a long time to master these and some may never do it. What Wikipedia needs most is editors who can write good encyclopedic prose as we have plenty of gnomes and techies who like tinkering with templates. It takes all sorts... Warden (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Less experienced editors": we are talking about an editor with 2 years + experience, having created hundreds of articles, not some clueless newbie. And it is not supposed to be "completely optional", it is part of our guidelines that every article should have at least one category. And contrary to what you claim, the lack of categories makes it much harder for people to "find" articles, so it is also affecting "the ability of readers to actually get information out of" the encyclopedia as a whole (and much more so than e.g. "big" tags). The search function is nice if you know the exact article: categories are better if you want all articles around a certain topic or with a certain common characteristic. Without a catedgory, could you easily tell which articles we had on Category:Assassinated Belgian politicians? Fram (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be true if categories were searchable in an obvious way, but they're not. Try typing "country houses in Greater Manchester" into the search box for instance and see what you get. Eric Corbett 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) ^This. Now, leaving a new article permanently without categories would be a concern, granted. But creating such an article does not mean that it disappears into the hinterlands of Category:Articles lacking categories. Even if it's a true orphan, with no links in and out, it'll show up on the new pages list, it'll be tagged (maybe by bot) as an orphan or as lacking categories or whatever, and someone will come by and add categories. And then life goes on. I seem to recall something about there not being a deadline - why do we need THIS editor to put categories on their new articles RIGHT THEN? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

With very little effort (putting "uncat" at the bottom of the page), he would make life easier for others. Apparently that's too much to ask though. Fram (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

How can Category:Articles lacking categories possibly be non-empty? The inclusion of an article in that category would disqualify it from being in the category. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly didn't think about it. If it existed, I guess it'd be hidden anyway. Oh, I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I get, as the first result, Category:Country houses in Greater Manchester, so for me this works as expected. What do you get? Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the message "You may create the page "Country houses in greater manchester", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered", and the first entry in the list below is "North West England (redirect from Manchester Liverpool Polynuclear Metropolitan Area). Eric Corbett 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Special:Preferences: Search in all namespaces" (or search in articles and categories) is your friend. Fram (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not be my friend, but I'm a logged in user, unlike the overwhelming majority of our readers. Eric Corbett 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

..., in fairness to Eric, and only good if you know that's what you can do. I didn't, and I've been here far too long. GiantSnowman 13:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)True. Even so, the text of the category (as written on the article) is included in the search, so they still show up in the search, but not as prominent. I agree that the current search is far from perfect, and wonder why categories aren't included in the default search. Not having categories won't improve this of course. And using the search function is only one possibility: going from an article to similar other ones is also made possible by categories, once you scroll to the bottom of the page at least. Again, not optimal. Oh, and if you do this search, no matter your preferences, the category will appear first (at least it does for me). But changing it to e.g. this one ruins that effect again... Fram (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why? Why do we need to imagine anything other than the specific issue you have brought to attention? Just close the thread. The editor deserves and requires no action to be taken by Admins. in respect of the specific concern about categories. There is no support for Admins to intervene in this case and anything else you bring up is irrelevant. Leaky Caldron 12:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My "imagine" response was a reply to Blackmane, which seemed to imply "I don't care about categories, so ..." Apparently a lot of people don't care about categories and don't see their purpose, their potential uses, which is rather disheartening. Fram (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

But categories as currently implemented are virtually useless. Eric Corbett 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? They could be a lot better (category intersection for one should be a standard search function), but that's a far cry from "virtually useless". Fram (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Completely useless to the average reader then. Eric Corbett 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

;-) Fram (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Fram: don't get me wrong, it's not an "I don't care about them". As someone who hasn't spent anytime on categories, I solely focus on improving article text when I pick an article. I take it on good faith that the copyedit requester knows where the article belongs and will stick it in the right place. As a reader, I certainly do make use of categories when I find a branch of articles I find interesting. The brevity of my comment certainly could be seen in the way you suggested. Blackmane (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive user 2

Once bitten, twice shy etc. I have an editor whose signature violates WP:SIGLINK (i.e. no links to their user and/or talk page) and they are not responding to my requests. What can I do in this situation? GiantSnowman 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Try to persuade them of the benefits of such links? Eric Corbett 13:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We've dealt with this before, recently, but I don't know what we did. This seems to be a more serious concern than the one above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? This one has zero impact on the readers of the encyclopedia or on its content. It only impacts editors. We are not more important than the actual encyclopedia surely? Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This one's easy - you've pointed it out, they're unresponsive, it IS policy. We've done it before. You can either a) name them and shame them here at AN or ANI until they actually follow the policy, or get blocked, or b) block them as per jurisprudence until their sig is policy-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 14:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, WP:SIGLINK is a guideline, not policy, just like Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline. But categorization applies to the mainspace, siglink only to talk pages and discussion pages. Yet you advocate blocking for this one, and not for the categorization one? Fram (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For the categorization thing, you're advocating pestering or blocking of an editor who doesn't add a maintenance tag to every article he creates. It's something that can be done just as quickly, and probably more easily, by whichever Twinkle-enabled new-page-patroller shows up to slap on their feel-good assortment of likely-to-be-ignored-for-months tags. Candleabracadabra wants to contribute to content development, but doesn't have an interest in article indexing—and that's fine. We don't compel editors to participate against their will in all aspects of Wikipedia's development. Candleabracadabra's articles are, arguably, incomplete without category tags, but they're not broken. He's doing nothing to prevent or obstruct the addition of categories or maintenance tags (or additional content, or navboxes, or infoboxes, or references...) by editors who come after him. We don't demand that he place the {uncategorized} template for the same reason that we don't insist that article creators put {copy edit} on their new efforts.

For the signature issue, an editor has to take a conscious, deliberate, positive step to change their signature from the default. Changing one's signature from the default to something that doesn't link to one's user or talk page is an active step. It takes something that is working, and turns it into something that is broken. While it generally isn't the intent of the editor to make themselves more difficult to reach (usually they're just trying to make their signature 'pretty') it is the effect of their actions. Further, it is something that can be remedied quickly and easily and permanently with a single change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There are some very basic community norms that shouldn't be hard to adhere to, one of which is either banging out four tildes or clicking the sig icon in the toolbar above. We've dealt with recalcitrant editors in the past with threats of blocks or actual blocks. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu comes to mind. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this pair of discussions because I wasn't sure what to say, but Tenofalltrades has convinced me; we really should take some sort of action regarding users who change their signatures unhelpfully, but I agree that it would be over the top to sanction Candelabra here. Look at my signature; it's only changed once since I registered in 2006, and that was because the default was changed from <User, timestamp> to <User (talk), timestamp> some years ago. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature linking is more important than adding categories because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that is a fundamental way in which we communicate with one another. Categories, on the other hand, are just a supplement to the really important things, i.e. properly sourced, neutrally worded, encyclopaedic content. I see categories in the same way as pictures or "see also" sections...a nice addition to any article, but not really a deal breaker as long as the content is up to standard. Ditch ∝ 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor still has not changed their signature, barring any outcry here I intend to indef them if they do not change it, obviously with the caveat that they will be unblocked once they have changed. GiantSnowman 09:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, threats do work (sometimes...) GiantSnowman 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that 'threats' were what produced the effect, nor that they were necessary. I mean, you slapped the guy's talk page with four messages in six hours, the last of which was announcing that you were taking the matter to this noticeboard. Then you hit him with a 'final warning' less than 24 hours later.

Yes, he needed to fix his signature; you'll get no argument from me on that. But absent any indication that the guy was acting in bad faith or disputing the requirement – or even that he was deliberately ignoring your messages (the new notifications system is a lot less conspicuous than the old) – it is far from clear that the level of...enthusiastic urgency...with which you sought his compliance was required or likely to helpful in the long run.

Instead of a spate of terse, acronym and alphabet-soup laden single-sentence demands, it would have been no more work – and much better 'people skills' – to spend a little bit of time crafting one clear, polite, request that contained a few words of explanation. (Particularly given that English does not appear to be this editor's first language.) As admins, we have a duty to educate and communicate, not merely to threaten and enforce. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit disputes at Microsoft Office 365

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

---

There appears to be a significant edit dispute at this page. One editor took it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Then they took the dispute to my talk page at User_talk:Bearian#Re:_Office_365. Can somebody help?! Bearian (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While it seems to have become a bit more stable now (there have been discussions on the edit warring noticeboard, and there haven't been any further reverts), I'm still a bit concerned about how things will be going forward. But still, I stand by my belief that vandalism covers things like saying The Annoying Orange is the president of the United Kingdom, and not good-faith efforts at improving an article. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is already being addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ), so I suggest that this section be closed immediately. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A Talking Cat!?!

Resolved

I wish to be allowed to edit the entry for the film A Talking Cat!?! I created the entry for The Room (film) and therefore should be considered qualified. The A Talking Cat!?! entry is currently locked for administrators, so I am pleading to be allowed to begin building this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoll (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The above editor posted this request earlier but someone deleted it from the noticeboard. I think Jcoll is referring to this [13] which does instruct him to come to the Administrators Noticeboard with such a request. Whether or not the request is viable is another matter. Taroaldo ✉ 08:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• This may be the movie Jcoll is referring to [14] Taroaldo ✉ 08:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've created the page (the title was being blocked by the blacklist). Jcoll can now add some content to it. Hut 8.5 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• What was the problem? Perhaps the !?! sequence? Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• That'd be my guess - it wasn't protected directly or SALTed as a result of shenanigans. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. I've left a note at Jcoll's talk page about the article being ready for editing. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

user:Chauahuasachca

Chauahuasachca (talk · contribs) recent page moves have separated talk pages from their subject pages. So this needs administrators to repair them, as some of the talk pages have active discussions, and some of the destinations have generated new discussions, making a simple talk page move impossible. A histmerge and restore of older discussions would then be necessary. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

These articles were created by IPs without regarding the criterias for page names. I don't understand what you want now.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to prove that statement? IP's have not been able to create live articles in years, and once ONE SINGLE PERSON complains about your page moves, you MUST stop and use the WP:RM process. What's happened now are cockups that only admns can fix ... well done! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP here is complaining about my "forgettings" to move the talk page also.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Chauahuasachca, you've been previously requested to show more care with page moves. At some point the difference between carelessness and willful disruption becomes moot. Tiderolls 14:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? First,were the articles created by unregistered users without regard for the criteria for page names? If so, how did that happen? A bug? Second, when the article pages were moved/renamed, did the editor override the default to move the talk page along with the article page? The default on page moves is to move the talk page with the article page. If the default was overridden, why? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the pages I checked (see below) were created by unregistered users; I don't know what he's talking about. That being said, there are two ways for it to happen: either they get created through WP:AFC, or they're old pages that were created before page creation was restricted to registered users. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very annoying and disruptive and so on. Could we perhaps bitch about it and fix the pages? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've left Chauahuasachca a final warning — moving tons of pages without their talk pages is quite disruptive when the new titles have no talk pages that would require administrative assistance, and it's made worse because you actively have to prevent the software from moving the talk page. I've also checked his entire move log for the past six months and moved all the talk pages that were still at the old titles. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to the final warning! I was busy moving pages myself. Thanks for the hand. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing as these often appear to be non-consensus moves to beging with, a topic ban from ANY page move - being forced to use RM - was more along my lines of thinking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours; he moved Juma Ahmad Atigha and left behind the talk page, even though the new page title had no associated talk page at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminix

Could someone take a look at the above article please, the legal stuff has me a bit concerned--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recently added legal stuff - looks like an advert/addition by the law firm involved.--ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have watchlisted this just in case of further legal excitement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on PC Level 2

We need closers for the big RfC on Pending Changes Level 2. Discussion is welcome at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013#Looking for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm offering my services.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

deadmau5 move review discussion

Hello, since 7 days has elapsed on this move review, could an admin who knows how to deal with stuff like this please close it? Thanks! Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of User:PumpkinSky

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

---

I'm formally requesting the community immediately unblock PumpkinSky. User:Jmh649 (Doc James) blocked PumpkinSky specifically for this [15] and later clarified as being a string of incivilities. Please read the entire discussion here.[16] Blocks for incivility are at best controversial, and in this instance, inappropriate. While a couple of comments from two weeks ago were well over the line, they were dealt with. Using a comment from 2011 as a reason to block is clearly inappropriate. The "trigger" diff was when PumpkinSky called an editor a "pompous ass" after that editor started a large thread mocking the efforts of other editors [17]. If you look at the start, the context at the "Hall of Lame"[18], then you realize the comment wasn't nearly as out of line as it seems.

While I can't and don't condone calling another editor a "pompous ass", neither do I wish the community to micromanage and police every comment from every editor in this way. I've asked Doc James to unblock but he has declined. To me, the standard is simple: Had I called someone a "pompous ass", I would not have been blocked. Even on that page, I inferred that PumpkinSky was being an "ass", yet nary an eyebrow was raised. And I've seen admin call each other worse without sanction. The block doesn't need to be for time served, it needs reverting. While I assume good faith, it is my opinion an error in judgement occurred. Rather than wheel war over it, I bring it to the community and ask them to swiftly do the right thing. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to revert block

• Unblock - clearly bad block that needs to be quickly reverted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock- I agree with Boing! said Zebedee Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There is a fairly long list of incivility as shown by the diffs provided.[19] I see no indication that the user in question feels his current comments or his previous comments were an issue. When he added "I can by to see what you were up to and saw you haven't edited in three months. Good riddance because the way you and Townlake behaved on my talk page in Oct 2012 was appalling. You should be ashamed on both a personal and admin level. But I'm sure you're not. But that is okay because karma will get you and I won't have to do a thing." to a users talk page and when someone brought concerns regarding these comments to his attention his reply was "I won't remove it nor the one on Townlake's talk page; but I also won't interfere with what others do in that regard."[20] When the concerns today were raised the response was "If you're not man enough to admit to the community you couldn't wait to make this block because of your feelings for Will and against me, at least admit it to yourself". This is no very conducive to collaborative editing IMO. If this continues a longer block may be needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Doc, that was two weeks ago, you can't really be saying that is the reason for the block. It WAS inappropriate, and had I seen it, I would have chewed on him much stronger than Strat did, but I wouldn't have blocked him two weeks later, and saying so here doesn't reflect well on you, to be honest. Digging in deeper by threatening a longer future block is not appropriate at this particular discussion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Bad block.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. There's no denying that PumpkinSky has been a bit testy lately, but the comments cited did not warrant a block. It's not really relevant to the unblock request, but I feel obliged to observe that Tony1 was inviting a comeback like that one in making his persistent accusations and insinuations against the people who participate in WP:DYK. And plenty of worse things than "pompous ass" get said around here on a regular basis without getting the speaker blocked. --Orlady (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock, per Dennis and Orlady, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Unblock of User:Who Am I Why Am I Here

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.

---

Who Am I Why Am I Here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked in early 2011 for creating malicious sock accounts. Then, a few days ago they created a new account: User:Think for Yourselves. The creation of their userpage was the account's first edit, and it explains all this in their own words.

So, upon reviewing an unblock request by Who Am I I concluded that the correct course of action was to block the new account and open this discussion. I consider that block purely procedural as they were technically evading a previous block so I restored the status quo and advised them I would be asking for input on the matter. I have also requested that they pick one account to use from now on, so I would suggest that this discussion is about unblocking one or the other but not both.

My own feeling on the matter is that I do believe that the creation of this new account was not in any way malicious, unlike the previous accounts, and that it has been a long time and people actually can change.

• The blocking admin is no longer active.

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Copied from the user's talk page

What do you plan to do if unblocked? --Rschen7754 07:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would probably update a lot of pages and the like about U.S. politics and politicians. I consider that my expertise, and although many of my troll posts in the past were about that, I feel that I can overcome the past and be constructive. I also consider myself to have a fairly good knowledge of various movies and TV shows, so I'm sure that I could help there, as well. I could probably help fill in some history pages, but I'd probably want to start with something less complicated.

Think for Yourselves (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I say why not. Worst case: relapse and reblock. Best case: successful rehabilitation. It hasn't been as much time as I'd like but I see no harm in givng the user a chance to prove what he's saying. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think the WP:Standard offer applies. Just engage them and get a promise to not engage in the behaviour that got them blocked, and since it's certainly been over 6 months, and they've not engaged in any questionable behaviour, I think everything's pretty kosher. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• As the user who answered to their helpme request, I totally agree with allowing the user to edit constructively under any one account he chooses to. From what i can see, he appears to be a promising candidate for some constructive work in the future. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Standard standard offer. How easy would it be for the user to never acknowledge a previous account... the standard offer exists because it inspires transparency. This is that, as far as this thread indicates. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Accept standard offer with current account. Previous accounts can be reblocked with a comment pointing to the new account if needed. Any time someone wants to join the the editing side and leave the lolz side, it should be encouraged. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yep, seems good to me too - hopefully we'll have a good convert from the dark side. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sure. Standard offer applies. --RA (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agreeing with everyone else. Acknowledging his past is solid evidence that he wants to be helpful; if he wanted to remain disruptive, he'd have absolutely no reason to acknowledge it. I agree with both sides of Beeblebrox' actions — the block was necessary because this is someone with a disruptive history, but the unblock request here is really the only appropriate way to respond to someone who seems genuinely rehabilitated. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Closure of ANI thread

Hi,

Would someone close this thread at ANI. It has been open for over a week and has already been archived once due to inactivity and has received sufficient input IMO.

I've proposed a wording for a restriction, if that is the result of a closure.

--RA (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz RfA topic ban/restriction

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

---

There seems to be some confusion regarding the RfA topic ban and whether or not "enough" consensus was obtained before it was implemented as a condition of unblocking Kiefer.Wolfowitz, by Drmies. The events surrounding his block are already well documented on his talk page and in the block log, as is the rationale for the RfA topic ban and don't require rehashing here. The purpose of this discussion is solely to document a community consensus for the topic ban, one way or another. It does not affect any other part of the terms of the unblock.

The short version of the restriction is that Kiefer is allowed to !vote at RfA but not allowed to reply to any comments on the main or talk page of individual RfAs. This is narrow enough to be enforceable yet allow him the ability to participate in all RfA !voting, making it the least aggressive method of restriction. Kiefer has agreed to some limitations in theory, but adding clarity by formalizing the existing topic ban is the better solution for the community.

Proposal to keep topic ban as shown here[21]

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved here from "editing restriction" page

RfA restriction and interaction ban AN I should not be restricted at RfAs. RfAs were explicitly excluded as a rationale for the block by the blocking administrator. RfA excluded as a blocking rationale by blocking administrator The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN, where the allusion to pedophilia was both striking and repugnant. [....] Horologium (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The close of the community discussion at AN did not mention RfAs, 28bytes's closure of AN discussion, which ignored RfAs but considered a two-way interaction ban wise The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. "This thread has been running for more than three days, and I don't think it can be argued that the community hasn't had a chance to weigh in here. (As Bishonen notes below, the number of participants here is quite extraordinary.) Setting aside GiantSnowman for a moment, I personally think Fram's suggestion that Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Demiurge1000 disengage is an extremely wise one, and in fact I told KW as much almost exactly a year ago on my talk page. However, the proposed interaction ban seems to have been rendered moot by subsequent events, namely KW's unfortunately worded comment about inappropriate behavior towards younger editors. While KW has, to his credit, clarified that he meant nothing sexual about the comment, accusing other editors of inappropriate contact with younger editors – sexual or not – is not something do be done lightly, and certainly not something to be done on a public noticeboard without evidence in the middle of a heated discussion. If KW is genuinely concerned that there is inappropriate recruiting (whether political or otherwise) of younger editors, I suggest he instead contact either ArbCom or the WMF with evidence backing up his concerns and they will act accordingly. Now, regarding the block. Many people have weighed in, but I simply do not see a consensus (1) to unblock KW, (2) to adjust the block to a specific period of time, or (3) to keep KW blocked forever (i.e. a defacto ban). What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated. That may happen tomorrow, it may happen two months from now, or it may not happen at all. I hope it happens quickly and KW is able to return to productive editing, but if it does, I strongly recommend he stay away from, and avoid commenting on the activities of, Demiurge1000. I offer the same recommendation to Demiurge1000 regarding comments about KW. I suspect both will enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia much more if they do so." so there was no "community-discussion" consensus supporting Drmies's restriction. If Drmies wishes to impose a restriction on my editing at RfAs, he should seek approval of an AN discussion or of ArbCom, as I read the policy on the other side. (He may also discuss RfAs with me, or if that fails try an RfC and ask me to volunteer for a restriction....) A two-party interaction ban was supported by the community and mentioned as reasonable by the closing AN administrator. Again, there is no policy basis for Drmies to impose a one-sided (inter)action ban on only me, One-way interaction ban, contrary to AN consensus The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. You should not interact with Demiurge. Given the nature of the diff that led to the block in the first place, I cannot really impose a two-way interaction ban, but I have no doubt that Demiurge will not seek you out or bait you, and I hope that they will refrain from commenting on you elsewhere. "No interaction" includes you won't mention them or their conduct anywhere on-wiki, including by allusion (added for us literary types). You won't visit their talk page or follow them around. Obviously I cannot (nor do I wish to) block you from the dramah boards etc; you must let common sense (mine, and I hope yours) prevail--stay out of discussions that they're involved in. This does not mean that Demiurge can, for instance, block you from continuing a discussion you've already engaged in by merely placing a comment, but I trust this won't happen. I have seen your efforts (some after your block, but still) to undo the damage caused by the remark, and I believe that you are sincere and won't repeat this; Demiurge appears to be of the same mind. At any rate, practically speaking it is not likely to be tolerated. when the AN consensus clearly favored a two-way ban. (I was blocked before it was imposed.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I removed the "ban". Even by the heuristics of administrator absolutism and elastic Wikipedia "logic", AN's failure to overturn a block that specifically excludes RfAs does not imply the existence of AN decision to indefinitely topic-ban an editor from RfAs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Dennis, there is no confusion. AN did not endorse a topic ban from RfA and the Horologium's block explicitly excluded RfAs from consideration. AN's failure to overturn Horologium's block, which explicitly excluded RfAs from consideration, did not constitute an endorsement of a ban from RfAs. That is obvious. Whether Horologium would agree to an unblock without an RfA topic-ban (despite his not stating that requirement in the original block or in its discussion here) is another question. I would suggest that those wishing to topic ban me from RfAs please prepare an RfC/U. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my blocking statement. What I said was that I didn't block you for your comments on RFA. That does not say that I oppose a restriction on you there. My comments to DrMies on my talk page make it clear that I support such a restriction; in fact, you have quoted that same post because it is where I expressed a concern about you getting baited. Horologium (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoting your blocking statement is "misrepresentation"? Why don't you all ban me from Wikipedia? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN" ≠ "RfAs were explicitly excluded as a rationale for the block by the blocking administrator" ≠ Horologium opposes an RFA restriction on KW (the first two are direct quotes, the third is a paraphrase). The statement I made on AN during the block discussion, was because the topic of RFA restrictions became a significant topic of discussion. My block was because of a comment on AN, not RFA. The comment on AN came in a discussion because of KW's behavior at RFA, which I did not witness at the time that I blocked him. At no time do I explicitly reject RFA restrictions on KW, and in fact, on my talk page, I explicitly supported some sort of limitation on threaded responses in my response to DrMies before the unblock. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Horologium, since I have your attention, please deal with your diffless WP:NPA violations in alleging I'd canvassed at some LGBT/feminism project, have an "anti-collaborative nature", etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

After an exchange with Pedro on an RFA,Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Guoguo12 2 (a review of the page history is illuminating), in which he made a comment which was unquestionably a vicious personal attack but not exactly sexist,[22] you first edit-warred with him, and then took it to the WP:Feminism discussion page. [23] There was absolute silence in response to your post.[24] In the same RFA discussion, you accused him of homophobia on truly trivial grounds,[25] and invoked the spectre of involving the LGBT project.[26] It's interesting that you could be accused of the same behavior, based on a pair of posts in the past few days. Your response on AN to User:Fluffernutter, in which you refer to her as "Fluffer",[27] could certainly be interpreted as sexist; she even includes a convenient link to the article on fluffer on her userpage to make it clear that the use of the term is NSFW. Further, you invoke "sucks" on your post here;[28] Pedro's use of the word was enough for you to accuse him of homophobia. As to your anti-collaborative nature, the AN discussion speaks for itself, but you couldn't restrain yourself from a string of personal attacks since your unblock ([29]--the response to Chris; [30]--the edit summary; [31]--the edit summary; [32] and [33]--I'm so power-hungry that I immediately brought my block up for discussion, with the explicit statement that I didn't object to the block being shortened). There are other examples, but I suspect that this is enough to establish that you are not particularly collegial with editors with whom you have had a disagreement. The nonsense in Guoguo12's RFA is justification enough (on its own) for some sort of restriction on your participation at WP:RFA, and your contributions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 only reinforce my belief that your participation in threaded discussions at RFA is sub-optimal. Horologium (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• RFC/U doesn't have the authority to create a topic ban or any sanction, by design. Since the topic ban was put in place as part of your unblock and it is disputed in good faith, then WP:AN is the preferred venue to deal with the concern. This is SOP for questions on sanctions. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't be so glum, Kiefer, you're in good company.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Supported this course of action in the original AN discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• The topic ban was an explicit condition of the unblock. Kiefer Wolfowitz is free to reject that topic ban, but if he does so he must also reject the unblock that was conditioned on it, and wait for another administrator to remove what was previously an indefinite block on his account. By editing this page, for example, Kiefer indicates that he has accepted the unblock and the topic ban that accompanied it. However, if the question is whether to also establish a community-based topic ban (rather than just the one that is part of the unblock), I would support that. I think that, compared to other possible resolutions of the original block, the very mild ban being discussed is among the least restrictive outcomes possible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Your argument and justification are absurd. Kumioko (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Carl, you seem to miss the point that an administrator (or a handfull of administrators) cannot impose a community restriction. Only ArbCom or AN(I?) can. Either AN should impose a restriction (of 3/4/6 months, or indefinite, or removed by the whims of one administrator, e.g. Drmies..., etc.) or advise Drmies that he cannot impose a formal community-restriction by himself. I have not objected to my restricting myself at RfA, as The Rambling Man should, also, but you administrators seem not to care when one of your own goes on a rampage. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think there should also be a link here to Drmies' unblock comment and rationale for this topic ban on Kiefer's page: here it is. P. S., Kiefer Wolfowitz, see how I refer to content on another page? With a link. That's the best way. Please stop copypasting your quarrels all over the place. You are free to mess up your own page with all those collapse boxes, I suppose; it makes it hard to understand and get an overview of, but that's up to you. Please don't do it here. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC).

  Stop the unearned condescension. Quotation often saves me time, which is valuable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ban and the block were unnecessary knee jerk reactions. Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Though I'm against an RfA ban, I support the proposal to keep in it place. The topic ban was an explicit condition of the unblock (a difficult decision on Drmies' part in the first place) and the terms are fairly benign. I actually think it will help Kiefer who appears to have the tendency to react to everything confusingly and at length. Bishonen and CBM have expressed this well. It is also worth pointing out that the consensus in the previous AN discussion was trending away from an unblock and Drmies did a balancing act with his unblock. Kiefer, you should try to recognize that and leave well alone. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, although I would've supported a continuation of the block. Kiefer's comments following his unblock show a persistant inability to drop the stick. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Do you provide diffs on IRC only? The last time you stated I had written "young boys". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely clear what you're referring to; I assume you're now accusing me of being part of some shadowy IRC conspiracy. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  I'm reminding you of your failure to rectify your violation of WP:NPA, by falsely accusing me of writing "young boys", when you advocated an indefinite block for one sentence. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This particular tempest is because Ironholds transposed "young men and boys" to "men and young boys", once, on KW's talk page. As KW's original post had references to both "young men and boys" and "boys and young men", it is likely that the transposition was inadvertent. Horologium (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The noble Ironhold makes a "young boys" accusation and leaves it for over a weak without manning up and correcting it. The commoner who was first blocked and asked that his inadvertent statement be struck was indefinitely blocked. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that as well and this is a prime example of how admins are treated differently than editors here on the site. If an admin does something wrong, generally nothing is done about. When an editor does it though they are blocked, banned, reprimanded, harrased and/or hounded. Frequently causing them to leave the site or being banned from it. Its been a problem for a while and I have been screaming it but no one cares because the admins control the site. They have the power and they are not about to do anything that would cause them to lose it. Anyone who tries to bring the issue out in the open becomes the pariah. Its like how the police deal with cops who "rat out" other cops. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see it as anything to do with the distinction between admins and editors; I really wish you two would stop constantly carping on about how "commoners" are treated differently. You are treated differently, certainly. This is nothing to do with your userrights, and nothing to do with you bringing it out into the open, although everything to do with your insistence that anything negative that happens to you is totally illegitimate, and that admins as a group are somehow corrupt. For reference, Kiefer (and the word is "week", as such a prestigious content contributor should be aware), the statement "young men and boys" can be parsed as either "young men (and boys)" or "young (men and boys)"; evidently I parsed it incorrectly. If you'd simply asked me to clarify I would've solved for it; your needless claims of conspiracy sort of reduce the stockpile of energy I keep around to deal with any legitimate points you have. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly that's is exactly part of the problem. The mentality that there is no problem. Using your own RFA history as an example. It took you like 4 or 5 tries at RFA and still people opposed for various reasons. Yet here you are, successfully being an admin and doing well. So those 4 or 5 RFA's you went through and the opposes, in the end, only proved that the process is garbage. Because you are doing fine, you haven't deleted the main page yet and no one is beating your door down to remove the tools. That's one case out of hundreds including mine. Back to the boys and men controversy. Keifer made the same claims and I believe, as do others, that the wording was taken out of context. But his ban stayed in place and required some wrangling by Drmies to get undone. It shouldn't have been implemented in the beginning. It was unnecessary and therefore the subsequent ban from RFA was also unnecessary. Not that it really matters anyway, as I mentioned on Keifers talk page, because RFA is distinctly dead these days with few applying and even fewer passing. Because its hard for editors to get involved and to vote their conscience without those interactions and voting histories being used against them in RFA. I also want to clarify that I do not want to be an admin! I find the title and the us and them culture appalling and counter to the culture of open source editable content we should be advocating here. I need access to some of the tools available only to admins and the full toolset is the only way to get them. Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds, I cannot recall anybody every caring about your input, so don't bother sparing your energy. Your "thwapping" threat was just laughed at. Nice example for you to set as an IRC regular and WMF employee. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds, have you figured out the difference between "young boys" and "boys", yet? Hint: It's a life or death distinction and the leading cause of truces in prison-gang wars.... Please strike your falsehood, which continues to violate WP:NPA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think the ban, as stated, would be good for Kiefer. I really don't like seeing a good contributor blocked, and anything that can help head off these pointless escalating arguments has to be a good thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  As per MONGO, I'd also be happy for the RfA restriction to be reviewed in six months (the time is not critical, but six months seems about right) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as minimum: (ec*3) The trouble with the terms of the proposed ban is that they state "if there is a thread (two or more comments), you cannot add to it". This means that Kiefer can still comment on an RFA vote, or on any intial posting at WT:RFA ,or on the talk page of any RFA. More effective would have been no replying at WP:RFA and no posting at all at WT:RFA or on the talk page of any RFA. But I support this as better than nothing. --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as minimum: Actually, I'd prefer that the block had not been lifted at all, and Kiefer's comments since returning have reinforced that conviction. However, the proposed ban was a specified condition of the unblock, and without it, the unblock would have to be reversed. Propose that the ban be reinstated if Kiefer does not agree to adhere with all of the conditions of his unblocking. Would oppose any modification. He knew the conditions, and agreed to them already, hence the unblock. So he has to live with them, or return to being indeffed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support After being surprised by the AN discussion which supported upholding my indef block, I had decided to wait a few days and revisit the subject. After seeing what happened on KW's talk page, however, I had little inclination to unblock, and in fact stopped watching the discussion because it was refactored beyond recognition. When DrMies approached me about an unblock, I was not optimistic but I was willing to allow him to proceed with a discussion with KW. After KW acknowledged that his actions were viewed by a substantial number of editors to be problematic, and he appeared to agree to the unblock conditions laid out, I was willing to provisionally unblock him, but DM had gone ahead and unblocked him. My biggest concern, in fact, was that Demiurge1000 did not accept a two-way interaction ban, but I was not going to keep KW blocked for someone else's intransigence (I didn't mention that elsewhere because the block had already been overturned by the time I saw that discussion). I think that the RFA restriction is a good idea, and would have added several more interaction bans before I seriously considered unblocking him. KW actually got off light, and seeing him flame DrMies is rather startling. Horologium (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the discussion thread on my talk page which has been referenced by several people is at User talk:Horologium#Kiefer. That thread will be moved to my June 2013 talk page archive at the end of the month, should anyone revisit this page at a later date and wish to review the discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I hate silencing anyone on the website, even those that have a tendency to be pugnacious as Keifer oftentimes is, since it is important to have many voices from many perspectives. I think Drmies is to be commended for how he handled the unblocking since he did it the best way an admin could, by inviting discussion from Horologium, who did the latest block and carefully crafting a reasonable unblock set of conditions, which Keifer originally seemed to agree with. I see no reason why the issue of Rfa participation can't be revisited in six months.--MONGO 17:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support since preceding discussions led me to believe this was a good idea from the side of the community, which I deemed would want to see some restrictions, and the editor in question, whose RfA participation was not the immediate reason for the block but was, as I gauged previous discussions, was cause for dissent in the community. If I erred in coming to a topic ban with some discussion, but certainly not community-wide discussion, I apologize to all involved, and I wish to think Dennis Brown for setting me straight (privately, via email). Slash with my apologies to Kiefer as well for apparently overstepping my boundaries as an administrator and furthering the idea that this is what admins do. Finally, I agree with MONGO's final remark, though I am not necessarily wedded to the time frame. I'd be fine with three. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, for the charity, even when I have been a burden. 3-6 months is quite different from an indefinite ban. I won't bother to document it, but I believe I'm the most thanked editor at RfAs, since Sandy and Malleus/Eric have reduced their participation and it's been months since anybody did a serious discussion of article contributions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Warden (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support at the minimum. --Rschen7754 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  What, praytell, is Rschen's maximal programme? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  K, I don't think your comments on this thread are helping your cause. You may want to think about what the underlying concern is of all the editors voting support, and see if you can reassure them, rather than disputing them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  My cause is to safeguard the community's procedures against an administrator who was pretending that a failure to have his block overturned gave him a blank check and against a claim that a handful of administrators can substitute their judgement for the community's judgement at AN and declare an editing restriction (again using the blank check). This decision is a triviality that doesn't concern me. Some of you are amusing, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Kiefer, I'm a bit taken aback here. Drmies spent a great deal of time and stuck his neck out and tried to do what he felt was the least oppressive thing that the community would accept, all to quickly get you unblocked. Once I got back into town and noticed the procedural error (and I only know about that error because I have made the exact same mistake once, it isn't well known or intuitive) I privately contacted Drmies, who chose to be very upfront here without delay. I started this discussion to correct a procedural error. With all due respect, were I you, I would be much more humble or at least grateful about the situation, knowing that the system actually worked and self-corrected itself with a minimum of drama, following policy to the letter, and it was done in a neutral and fair way. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please read the beginning sentences of my last paragraph, and consider the issues mentioned, which are hardly "bureaucratic" (at least by in the usual sense, rather than the awesome analysis of Weber or Perrow). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Well, what I really want is for Kiefer to stay out of these controversies, instead of getting caught up in them. I think you get things right a lot of the time, but sometimes you move too quickly into attack mode, as you did in response to my comment. And for the record, I don't think the other party was completely innocent either in the latest flareup. --Rschen7754 01:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  "What, praytell, is Rschen's maximal programme?" is "attack mode"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• This should not have been opened. The restriction is claimed to be "trivial" to the restricted editor.[34] The due process claims also therefore seem trivial, in the NOTBURO manner. But in review of the due process, it appears that Drmies did have reason to believe he had consensus in good faith. So, this should just be closed, nolo contendere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking latin doesn't make you a lawyer. Not sure how you think this is a model of "due process", but there's not a lot of other substance to your point. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? Since nothing is said about being a lawyer, nor about any model, your comments make no sense. Nonetheless, the substantive issues are clear, the restriction is trivial and the process was due. If what you want is to go on about it fine, but when you make blown-up cases about trivialities, your arguments look trivial.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You've still said nothing of substance. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) That was probably unnecessary. Sorry about that. Shadowjams (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, if nothing of substance, there would be no need to spill ink on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The block was not for comments at an RfA. Restriction is not relevant to the reasons for the block, so I see no reason why it would be conditional for the unblock. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm neutral on the restrictions themselves, but the notion that an admin can make unilateral ban restrictions to their own preference, and have it taken as gospel, has gone on too long. If there's an ability to unilaterally impose bans with arbitrary criteria then there should be a similar ability for others to remove them. Probably doesn't even need to be linked to admin status. Which of course demonstrates the ridiculousness of such a notion. At least in the past there's been some pretense of consensus for arbitrary ban restrictions. I guess we've forgone that. There seems to me to be some small segment of admins who believe they're in a unique position to make these declarations; that needs to stop. If there's actual consensus (and not just the usual crew piling on at far flung venues over the course of a few hours) then that's fine. Shadowjams (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The problem is a poisonous interaction relationship between another editor and KW; this remedy has nothing to do with that. This strikes me as akin to attempting to fix tooth decay by putting a cast on one's leg... Carrite (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as minimum; better yet would be an expansion of the ban to all RFA-related pages. I don't think "threaded discussion" is clear enough to keep KW from pointless arguments that pull focus away from the candidate under discussion. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I did not comment in the previous discussion, but I read it the way Dennis does, and not the way K.W does. The topic ban was clearly a condition of the unblock, and if KW does not want to accept the topic ban, which is his prerogative, then he should be re-blocked. If he wishes to stay unblocked, he must accept the topic ban. While K.W wishes to present his stance as (in some fashion I don't understand) a check against bureaucracy, it seems more like gamesmanship and Wikilawyering to me, i.e. accept an offered option in order to be unblocked, and then rely on prejudice against administrative action to overturn the condition without reverting to the status quo ante. That, in its fashion, is more disruptive than the behavior which led to KW's block and topic ban, because it undermines the administrative authority necessary to insure that the project continues running and not devolve into total chaos, and acts as a corrosive eating away at the community, such as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  "undermines the administrative authority necessary to insure that the project continues running and not devolve into total chaos, and acts as a corrosive eating away at the community..." is even more hysterical than The Running Man's comments at the last RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Kiefer, that response is very much unworthy of your intelligence and your usual powers of perception, as there is nothing in the least "hysterical" about my comment. I didn't expect you to agree with me, but I thought at least your reply would be rational and not simply emotional lashing out. I have to agree with whoever it was above who said that your comments here are not showing you in the best light. My suggestion is that you refrain from further commentary here, as you seem to be doing yourself more harm than good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Previous interactions have made it clear to me (and many others it seems) that KW will often try to "unsay" things or to argue about trivial points that distract from the main subject under discussion. This appears to be a perfect example of that trend, and so a formal, community imposed sanction that is unambiguous seems in order, otherwise it is unlikely he would abide by the terms even if he appeared to agree with them before. I would suggest that the enforcement mechanism be a a series of sharply escalating blocks, limiting out to an indef after about three. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe you should read the "community restriction" policy, which you seem to think is one of several "trivial points"? I look forward to your next run at ArbCom.... :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, all this condescending bullshit you post is not helping your case. I realize that is your go-to move when you feel threatened, but for someone who acts like they are so smart you don't seem to understand how you are often your own worst enemy. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Some less drama wouldn't hurt anybody. If its possible to achieve that through this, I'll gladly support it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please clarify your argument. Why not just ban me or everybody, which would minimize drama? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find it difficult to believe that the window of acceptable outcomes here even includes an unblock. If this is the toughest sanctions that will stick, so be it. It's sadly far more likely that KW will continue to test the extremely sanguine boundaries set here than he will to consciously alter his attitude. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe you should ask My76Strat for copyediting help? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support at a minimum. I agree with the people who've said above that Kiefer should have been free to either accept the unblock and restriction, or decline both, but not to mix and match, and that rejecting his restriction as he's doing ought to lead to a re-block until new terms are negotiated. However, there's not likely to be overwhelming support for reblocking Kiefer based on what's been said in this thread so far, so assuming that's a no-go, here's what I think: I think removing Kiefer from RFA discussion is just putting a band-aid on an issue we'll soon find ourselves revisiting anyway, but if it's the best solution we have available right now, it will have to do. Kiefer, I see that even people who've had their issues with the bureaucracy around here have been pleading with you to dial back the approach you're taking lately; I think they're speaking a lot of sense, and I wish you'd consider listening to them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Advice to me based on political expediency is prime facie evidence of political incompetence, at least on Wikipedia. Advice to me on principle is always welcome. Fluffer, you seem to be suggesting that an arbitrator administrator can impose a community restriction, which is not policy. Change the policy through an RfC if you like, but be honest. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  Not exactly, at least as far as the imposing-restrictions (I'm not sure what "an arbitrator" has to do with this; Drmies isn't one). I'm saying that it is, to the best of my knowledge, acceptable (and not uncommon) for an admin to tell a blocked editor, "I'm willing to unblock if you agree to [restriction|terms|whatever]". The blocked user can then choose to accept that condition, or say "No thank you, I'll wait for my request to be reviewed by someone else". The user has a choice between accepting the condition or waiting for someone to offer them better terms, so to speak; the admin's restriction only goes into effect if the user accepts it. In this case, Drmies assumed you'd accept the conditions and unblocked without waiting for your agreement, which set things topsy-turvy, and is why I say that ideally the block should go back into place until terms acceptable to both you and the/an unblocking admin are been reached. Since you're unblocked and editing now, though, the question is whether the restriction should apply to your editing going forward. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you think this topic ban is remedying exactly? KW was not blocked for disruption at RFA. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why I say that I think an RFA restriction is only a band-aid on the problem. The real problem is more a matter of how Kiefer chooses, at times, to engage with other editors in an unnecessarily accusatory manner. Participation at RFA can bring this out of him - not always, but enough so that it's a decent step to take to limit instances of that behavior - but it's not the only situation in which this issue arises, and I don't think this RFA restriction is going to solve the root problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a step in the right direction. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• 'Support KW's constant arguing with every support vote here gives me the belief that such a restriction is necessary. I would suggest that if the result is judged as "no consensus to lift or sustain the restriction" that it be taken to the Committee, if they will accept. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  The restriction does not exist because individual administrators do not have the authority to impose community restrictions. The close may well impose a restriction for the first time, following the suggestion of Drmies. (It doesn't matter for my behavior, because I said I would agree with the spirit and letter of a suggested restriction.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems fairly straight forward to me. Drmies was willing to unblock KW if KW agreed to certain restrictions. As no other admin had given any indication that they would unblock KW and KW had hinted at a similar restriction, Drmies went ahead and made the unblock. This is a normal course of events on the encyclopedia - you do not need consensus for a voluntary restriction. So, if KW does not accept the restriction, he should be promptly re-blocked, until he can persuade an administrator that he should be unblocked without said restriction. Of course, that won't actually help the encyclopedia, we get another few days of discussing the matter and not getting on with anything useful, so if a community imposed restrictions will grease the wheels, I will certainly support the restrictions suggested by Drmies. While I'm here, can I also thank User:Drmies? He stuck his neck out when other admins refused to and tried to find a solution which everyone could be happy with. I don't see him getting as much credit for that as he deserves. Worm^TT(talk) 21:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If I follow, effectively any admin can remove the restrictions? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but they might want to read this discussion, the original block discussion and the unblock discussion, before doing so, as it really should dissuade them from doing so. K.W has done himself no favors in those threads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll leave it to others to weigh in on whether the proposed restrictions are a good idea, but I do want to go on the record saying that I support what Drmies was trying to accomplish here. Offering a conditional unblock is a reasonable thing to do, and well within admin discretion. I know some editors dislike the idea of unilaterally placed editing restrictions, but I don't subscribe to the idea that telling someone they can't edit X is anathema but telling them they can't edit anything is perfectly OK. Perhaps Drmies picked the wrong X; regardless, he deserves thanks for stepping in and trying to bring back an editor in a way that would (theoretically) minimize future unnecessary conflict. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Question

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

---

It seems that several of us feel that the terms of the proposed topic ban are too toothless and afford us too little protection from disruption. I've registered my protest to Drmies for this in this edit. My question here is whether we actually have to put up with the watered-down terms, or whether a complete topic ban from RfA is preferred. I hope this will not muddy the waters -- if anyone chooses to support this proposal, I recommend not withdrawing any support from the one in the main section, in case this one should fail. So, the proposal in this subsection is to make the topic ban an unconditional one for all RFA pages, subpages and their talk pages. --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer --Stfg (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as Q.E.D. from the discussion above. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose because he should be able to weigh in on who will have authority over him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I am probably the most thanked participant at RfAs, because of my analysis of the candidates. Where, Stfg, is my participation with RfAs problematic, except in responding to disagreeable concerns in threaded discussions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Examples: [35], followed a day later by [36]. --Stfg (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  That's your "disruption"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue here isn't specifically about RfA, it's about KW's style of interaction during disagreements - so I don't see a need for a ban from RfA. We don't need measures to stop what doesn't usually go wrong - the partial restrictions proposed above, which are aimed at stopping escalation when things do start to go wrong, seem about right to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I do oppose this for exactly the same reasons as Boing! said Zebedee, KW's initial comments at RfA are seldom problematic, it's the latter comments that can lead to issues. However, I would like to see KW's evidence for the suggestion that he is "probably the most thanked participant at RfAs" - I find it a surprising hypothesis. Worm^TT(talk) 20:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that maintaining the conditions that Drmies put on KW is adequate. I am also open to those being lifted after a while. His votes at RfA are seldom the issue, the threaded discussion is, so the more targeted approach seems more fair to him and the candidates. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the reasons above and as I stated previously I don't think it was necessary in the first place. Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the original proposal is a sensible one. It's not the oppose !votes that are a problem but it's the stuff that goes on after that. The restriction placed by Drmies addresses that rather well. --regentspark (comment) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Users should have a fundamental right to Support or Oppose those who are asking for permissions capable of drastically curtailing their editing ability through page protection, page deletion, filter editing and ultimately account blocking, that right doesn't extend to fisticuffs at RfA but that, as Marvin and Kim sang, takes two and it becomes the responsibility for both parties to ensure there's not uncontrolled escalation of discussion. I'm getting a bit of a feeling now that some people know exactly what to say and do to get Kiefer to respond in such a way that sanctions can easily be argued for, and they need to be controlled just as much as Kiefer needs to be occasionally reigned in. Nick (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:Hatnote

Is there a hatnote converter?--Launchballer 11:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean a script to convert manually-typed indentation and italic markup to the proper hatnote template? (I'm not specifically aware of such a script.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Proper hatnote template"--there's really no difference at all between using {{hatnote}} and :''text''. As an aside, AN was probably not the best place to post this — VPT is thataways. Theopolisme (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - all it really does is put the content in a div with class="dablink". The only thing that class seems to apply is italics and margins. So, other than the (maybe important, maybe not) possibilities that someone might have custom CSS for that class, or that scripts might look for the class, it doesn't seem to do a lot. As Theopolisme says, though - VPT would answer those questions. Begoon ^talk 17:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It adds semantic value, and makes makes it trivial for external users to filter out. Hatnotes should always use templates. If that was indeed what was being requested here, I can't imagine it'd be extraordinarily difficult to write one, though even Twinkle struggles occasionally with detecting improperly formatted hatnotes. But this almost certainly doesn't require specific input from the admin corps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock 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'm at work and don't have enough time to figure out exactly how rangeblocks work... and I'd rather avoid the possible consequences of a half-assed action. Please check out the IPs I keep on blocking of a relentlessly evading socker and apply whatever rangeblock proves necessary. Thanks! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

SPP'ed my talk page because I don't have time to deal with this crap, but it doesn't mean he'll stop. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)It doesn't look like they can all be encompassed in a single rangeblock, and it seems that they aren't closely-grouped enough for a set of separate rangeblocks (I only see at most 2 per /16).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So in short, not much can be done. Jeeez... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained at greater length on my talk page (not knowing that this thread was here), it is sometimes possible to win a war of attrition against users like this by making lots of little range blocks, but it takes a hell of a lot of work, and isn't guaranteed to work, so I'm afraid it largely comes down to a game of whackamole, blocking individual IP addresses or at best very small ranges. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, we've been whack-a-moling all day. I even SPP'ed my talk page because I didn't have time to deal with it all. But hey, we'll live. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

VisualEditor - A/B test launch on 18 June

Hey all.

As previously announced (via a watchlist notice and static announcements), we'll be enabling the VisualEditor for a percentage of newly-created accounts, starting Tuesday the 18th. Our main goal here is to find out what difference it makes to the number of users who start editing, and who complete an edit, so we can find out what strains a full deployment might put on community workflows - even if it works perfectly as software, we need to know if turning it on will break the teahouse :). Obviously there are some bugs at the moment, a few of them very serious, but I've been assured the big ones will be fixed before the software launches for this test - including things like template and reference editing. If we aren't comfortable with the state of it, we won't hit the on button. If things look fine, we turn it on, and something breaks dramatically, tell us - we retain the ability to just switch the VE off if it starts mangling things, and will be monitoring closely :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good idea — much better to test it for a few people before making it live for everyone! You mention template editing; is it possible to use it to edit complicated code? Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is, use it to edit templates themselves? No, but thankfully it'll only be live in the mainspace :). In terms of being able to insert new templates (and modify them) or modify existing templates, it'll be possible with the next release - see this mediawiki page for a test sandbox :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, using it to edit templates themselves; thanks for the clarification, because I misunderstood it to mean that those editors using it would have to use it on all pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is great idea. Beta testing and gathering user information like this is great. However, there have been a number of improperly announced changes to the UI recently that have vexed folk and I think there is a desire among the community for involvement in UI changes. This doesn't have to be full-on, snails-pace discussion/consultation. But greater clarity, openness, forewarning and transparency would be appreciated, I believe.

Example issues that pop to mind right immediately, for example, include:

1. Given that issues are expected, what efforts are being taken to notify the wider community so that everyone knows what's going (and how to react)? VP Tech and the admin noticeboard hardly reach the widest audience.
2. How long is the trial running for and when is data expected to come in? Will data from the trial be published to the community?
3. What are the expected outcomes? How will the data be analysed and what decisions will be made using the data?

Thanks, --RA (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I do think this is seriously premature - it seems to have been decreed that the trial must start today, ready or not.

Experimental use of the first version has shown up very large numbers of bugs - see the ever-lengthening list at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback. Okeyes says he has been "assured the big ones will be fixed" in the new version, but it also includes major additions, the ability to edit templates and references, which have not been exposed to general user testing. It cannot be sensible to throw it open to half of new editors before giving it any exposure to testing by experienced editors.

Some of the bugs found, e.g. ones described here and here, cause VE to make substantial unexpected changes to pages, beside what the user intended. Experienced testers can watch for that, and have been following a routine of 1.Edit with VE 2.Inspect the result 3.Revert the change 4.Report the bug. Newbies will not do that, and unless every newbie VE edit is checked, we risk having articles damaged.

Even if the primary aim of the A/B trial is to determine what difference VE makes to the proportion of newbies who complete an edit, giving them an untested and buggy version will not tell us how they would react to a tested, smoothly-working version that had (as I believe this will not) a "Help" button linking to a page of user guide. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please draft up some boilerplate text to whack on newbie talk pages telling them (1) their VisualEditor edit was reverted because it is buggy, (2) how to disable VE and (3) to try again in the usual manner? (It's near bedtime for me). I don't want to see users blocked for WMF incompetence pretending to be vandalism, unless they're WMF staff. MER-C 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Some very good points above. Selected newbies should be informed that they are using software with expected bugs, what that software is and how to debug it. This is not a laboratory. It's a live environment and if bugs are expected we cannot sacrifice the project or give newbie a poor experience without their understanding. --RA (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

With that I've created User:Charmlet/VE-notice and User:Charmlet/VE-user, feel free to use them/modify them if you wish. Charmlet (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hey all. We're going to postpone the A/B test for several days; I'll post more details as I get them, but I understand it's largely down to known bugs with the existing software - bugs that you reported, and bugs that were crucial in making a go/no go decision. Thank you to everyone for all your hard work poking at the VE, and for all your reports thus far; it's much appreciated :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, can we have an opt-in group? I'm game. I edit little and carefully right now and I am not bad at software issue feedback. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For most people, it's apparently been possible for a while to use it; go to Wikipedia:VisualEditor and follow the instructions regarding Special:Preferences. I've followed them and can't yet use it, so if you can't get it to appear, don't think you're the only one. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nyttend, look all over your tabs (if on vector). Mine appears as a small tab with no words, about the width of

| |

That little thing there (if not smaller), due to my JS/CSS settings. If that fails, I've heard of people having to selectively disable JS/CSS until they find the interfering one(s). Charmlet (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, and I couldn't find it. I'm not using any JS or CSS that's different from the defaults. As was noted at the feedback page, others have gotten it to work in Monobook (which I use), so it's something bigger than a simple skin problem. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Worked for me. There are two tabs, one for 'edit' and the other for 'edit source'. The first is the visual editor. Of course it did not support the first change I tried. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's get admin opinion on the use of a new RFC to sneakily try to undo a recent one

At Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, there is currently an RFC as to whether election data from 2012 should be included in the article. However, several editors are trying to use this RFC to undo a previous RFC which found consensus not to include synthy election data from 2008. This latter RFC was closed about a month ago and had its close confirmed yesterday. I'd like some opinions on whether this backdoor attempt to circumvent the community consensus is acceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I closed a previous set of RfC. At a glance, it looks like RfCs are being used on that page where discussion would be more appropriate. --RA (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As a start, I've closed the request for closure here and removed the RfC template from the article. --RA (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on the talk page and notified certain editors. --RA (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. The page is a mess. The plethora of inappropriately constituted and worded motions by Casprings made actual consensus hard to follow. The RfC by Arzel, while his first, is one of the few aimed at clarity, and works perfectly well, even better, as a Talk page topic. No action requested, but note WP:PA ("sneaky" "synthy" allege "undo")--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

An apology

I have, at times, been dismissive of requests of User:Pigsonthewing. I apologise. On reflection, I would say that Andy Mabbett is (a) a very, very committed Wikipedian and (b) a top bloke.

I made the comments here and on ANI, so here is where I apologise. I was unduly hasty. I encourage other admins to look beyond the seemingly excessively detail-focused nature of his requests and spend a few minutes talking to him. Especially if you are English or ride a Brompton. Andy Mabbett deserves support and help, I was rude to him and I am a bad man. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm mostly unaware of the situation(s) that lead up to this, but I can only commend a public display of contrition and an admission of misjudgement. Some people could undoubtedly benefit from your example. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We're Wikipedians. When we get it wrong, we should put our hands up. That is the right thing to do. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support this approach, and try to live up to this same standard. Thank you for walking the walk. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion disruption

During a discussion at Talk:Power factor User:212.183.140.50 broke a four month edit silence to post personal attacks regarding sock puppetry of User:Wtshymanski and myself User:174.118.142.187 . I reverted the edits as I understand personal attacks on article talk pages are disruptive and allowed to be removed without comment to cool the situation and not aggravate it. My revert was re-instated by User:DieSwartzPunkt and further personal attacks made to agree with the IP. A following notice was placed on my talk page that I was not allowed to change another editor's comments by User:DieSwartzPunkt.[[37]]

Please note that this behavior has been seen for quite some time where discussions in articles with User:DieSwartzPunkt are disrupted by sudden participation from same geolocated IP editors, with very few or no edits history, to support discussions in his favour. This was previously pointed out and a warning to behave himself was issued by Dennis Brown[[38]]. He retorted he forgot to log in after a party when he installed a phoney block on my talk page.[[39]] After this same repeated sequence of events I have been observing and documenting some of this [[40]]. The tag team behavior between him and User:I B Wright is very suspicious, perhaps as in a mentor relationship. Note, both editors suddenly awoke from days of editing silence in a previous attempt to stop my compilation of strange IP edits involved with supporting attacks of User:Wtshymanski.[[41]] Please note the AGF tone used.

<Please note the sequence format disruption injected below is not my text but mine continues below. DieSwartzPunkt has been warned previously for this tactic to disrupt the flow of conversation but still does it on a regular basis.>

Well Mr Wright apparently spotted it and made me aware of it on my talk page, so maybe that is why I responded shortly after he spotted it.

As for the IP edits where we agree, 174.118.142.187 has not documanted any. In fact there are a good number, but that is not surprising if we edit with apparently similar interests - sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. There are probably just as many edits where we disagree. If 174.118.142.187 cares to post his 'agreements' I will post the disagreements. This is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This has become tiring to myself and Wtshymanski, even though the latter doesn't usually want to become involved in these politics and remains quiet.

I would like to see this IP blocked (check edit history for a long list of warnings) as a minimum and User:DieSwartzPunkt receive a corrective action for this repeated behavior as a lesson to make a better environment in the future. I would also like the attack comments removed from the talk page where I attempted to remove his ad hominem attacks that started this ANI report. [[42]]. (current collapsed) They serve no purpose to forward the discussion, there.

A possible solution may be an article edit interaction ban for the two (possibly three or four I have no problem with Wtshymanski's edit technique, although he's not talkative) of us where none of us could edit an article or talk page that has been previously edited by another editor involved in the last two years. 500 edits would be an easier check for each of us to follow. This would have to agreed upon by DieSwartzPunkt or forced by admin to work. This long term grudge seems to accelerating since I made a suggestion regarding his Wtshymanski attack page User talk:DieSwartzPunkt/WTS and his own personal comments.[[43]] in an attempt to help him. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Updated and typos 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused Wtshymanski and 174.118.142.187 of Sockpuppetry and have opened a sockpuppetry investigation, so you cann assume that this is a 'tit for tat' response. You may also care to check 174.118.142.187's history of making ANI complaints where he frequently raises frivolous complaints against any editor who opposes him (none have ever been upheld). He is also attempting to 'compile' evidence against other editors based on faulty grounds at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 presumably as part of his frivolous complaint campaign. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the "evidence" page linked to above per WP:ATTACK; lists of enemies and the like are not appropriate even in the user namespace. Aside from that, I'd say the sockpuppet investigation can determine the next step. If 174.118.142.187 wants to open a sock investigation of his own, he is free to do so. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Will you also be deleting a similar page[[44]] with added personal attacks on User:Wtshymanski existing since November 2012? Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When did it become unacceptable to compile 'Request for Comments' against tendentious editors? Naturally Wtshymanski has wanted this one deleted and his sock has persuaded you to do so.

August 21, 2007. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You want the work in progress RfC against you deleted. RfCs are legitimate tools to bring about discussion and concensus about tendentious editors, but we can understand why you (Wtshymanski) would want it deleted. More evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I was debating whether to raise this as a new issue but: 174.118.142.187 has now taken to unacceptable abuse where he has now accused me of slander. Though he accuses me of having a 'slander page' it is not clear where this is meant to be. [45]. Also the allegation above where multiple allegation of being hoodlums is being made. This is completely unacceptable and must result in a block. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the "This has become tiring to myself and Wtshymanski" phrase above. I Call Shenanigans. I am no fan of Wtshymanski and his disruption of our Engineering articles, but letting some IP editor speak for him goes against all of Wtshymanski's previous behavior. So does any accusation of sockpuppetry against Wtshymanski, BTW. That just isn't him. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you and I both know that Wtshymanski will change his tack when the tide turns against him. With his recent block for repeated tendentious editing and that the admins are, at last, starting to take note (ref: User:Thumperward's remarks when he was blocked), I would suggest that this is his latest change of tack. How do you explain the stack of coincidences laid out in the SPI? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply is at SPI. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted how the same disruptive behaviour was demonstrated here with side track issues that attempt to confuse the original subject matter.

A further SPI launched against myself and Wtshymanski was just closed as " it is very unlikely they are the same person".

Another similar and simultaneous attempt by DieSwartzPunkt[[46]] resulted in more gang style abuse and an admin marking it "the named account and IPs are clearly not the same person".

Previously another attempt was made to disrupt a content dispute [here] as DieSwartzPunkt launched another ANI complaint using an IP address and subsequently correcting it with his DieSwartzPunkt account name later[[47]].

[Here] is another incident of his attempts to hound me using another IP (admitted later) when he tried to block my editing access after another content dispute.

Clearly DieSwartzPunkt's actions demonstrate he thinks disruption is the way to resolve many content disputes. This behavior needs to be changed for future improvements to WP edits. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Raking up old evidence that has already been dismissed is not likely to do you any favours. Even more clearly, as the new header to your talk page (presumably added by an admin) states ([48]), it would seem that they consider you to be at fault here. 'nuff said. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I offered a possible workaround solution above and yet you to continue to bash and stamp your feet and do not seem to be interested in moving forward with an amicable solution between us. I see no response comments. I am assuming you have read the other people's comments. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup at Scotiabank Place

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

---

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

---

The Ottawa Senators announced that their arena name will be changing from Scotiabank Place to Canadian Tire Centre on July 1, 2013 [49]. Within two hours of that announcement, editors had renamed the Scotiabank Place page to Canadian Tire Centre. I have tagged Scotiabank Place for CSD G6 and requested that the Canadian Tire Centre page be moved back there. The CSD has been in place for a few hours, and the redirect keeps getting added back in by well-meaning editors. Could an admin move the page back, and move-protect it until July 1, 2013 so this doesn't keep happening? There are ripple effects as editors have been changing the name at the Ottawa Senators page, NHL page, etc. A news release on the Ottawa Senators official website [50] confirms the changeover date. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 02:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvadrim and I both responded at the same time; we had a partial move-conflict and left chaos in our wake by accident. He offered to clean it up, so everything should be back where it belongs pretty soon. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvidrim, hehe. And yea, some revisions weren't left at the proper article. Hopefully I've been able to fix everything properly. I'm still getting used to managing histmerges and histsplits, but I'm pretty sure this is correct now. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[another conflict! And I tried to fix the spelling in the mean time] Salvidrim's now apparently done with the history unmangling, and the page is now move-protected; I think we're done here. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for the quick response. I'm sure the chaos wasn't any more than what was created by the many over-excited fan edits today. Thanks again! Taroaldo ✉ 03:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

[Now we conflicted again...] Didn't help that I fully-protected everything as soon as I realised that something had gone wrong — I figured full protection would prevent future edit conflicts and let me fix everything without risk of additional chaos, but I completely forgot that Salvidrim was an admin and thus able to have edit/protection conflicts as well as move conflicts. I think all my temporary protection is gone (didn't see any lingering protection except for the move protection), but it would be good for someone other than Salvidrim or me to check for it. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Next admin in line: just push the {{abot}} template down under your last message once everything's checked and fixed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Backlog

Resolved

 – for now, at least. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

AIV very backlogged. Will clear if it's still bad after I get back from work. Danger ^{High voltage!} 11:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help unbundling a group AfD

here has been enough objection at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the remaining members of the council of grandmothers to the group nomination that I've decided to close this one out and relist the articles individually. If some knowledgeable and helpful administrator could contact me on my talk page and walk me through this I would be grateful. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Although Mangoe did create the AfD, it is by no means clear that there is a consensus for unbundling the AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it worked the other way around, i.e. there needs to be consensus for maintaining articles in a bundle. As WP:BUNDLE says "if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't." Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin, followed link from the AfD) The discussion started as a bundle and went for a long time as a bundle. As far as I can tell keep !votes either argue that they are individually notable or are procedural unbundle requests, while merge and delete !votes view them as a bundled group. Ansh666 00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My sense of the discussion is that with the exception of three or four there is a lack of any serious resistance to their lack of independent notability (noting here that the discussion of the group itself was inconclusive). On the other hand there seems to be a four-way split developing in the discussion, with two of the groups objecting to the bundled nomination either on principle or on the basis of specific members. I think that we are more likely to come to a resolution with separate nominations, and I did promise from the start that if there was significant discussion of individual members, they could be split out. I feel that we've reached that point definitely on one member. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I think Mangoe's analysis is pretty good - separate nominations here would be valuable. Debates like this make me wonder why we don't have a template for {{AFDtrainwreck}}. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite

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 wish to ask that some level-headed admin take a good-hard look at this editor and ask themselves rationally if this is truly the sort of person they want editing on this site. You see, whoever they are, they truly have some sort of personality disorder that borders on the antisocial and sociopathic because they never assume WP:GF or the tenet WP:BOLD. Anything sourced or unsourced is often deleted or removed based on pithy assumptions or reasons only known to The Old Jacobite.

I make this stark assessment by drawing your attention to their edit logs. If you will note almost all the contributions from editor are red, and not just small reds, huge chunks of the effort are being deleted. For instance, this recent edit at the film article on the The Name of the Rose is correct. I have read the book, and I know the person who added this is right. But The Old Jacobite has removed it claiming: "Unsourced addition." How can this be an unsourced assertion when the source is plot of the book in comparison to the film? Where is the "good faith"?

But this is just one example among hundreds, if not thousands, of heavy handed editing. Just going through this person's edits show they generally have no intention of making a "contribution" because all they do is delete large chunks of articles (their only major contribution is often to leave explanations on other editor's talk pages defending their actions).

Finally I speak about this from both a personal and professional aspect. Firstly I encountered this person some years ago when they went by the provocative title "RepublicanJacobite". Back then, as now, they clearly show no care towards the effort of others who actually want to disseminate information for the greater good. Their main interest seems to reside in triumphing overs others by exercising their knowledge of the rules but not the spirit of this encyclopedia project. Attributes that are not the heart of a kind person or someone with empathy. In that respect I speak from a professional position, in real life I often have to deal with people who exhibit behaviour which is obsessive, personality orientated, passive aggressive, and environmentally corrosive/destructive (no surprises - as would be expected in this case - they shy away from confrontation on their general behaviour by blocking their talkpage to comments).

In this respect I hardly do any edits here any more, largely because of people like The Old Jacobite. Honestly who needs grief when all you want to do is engage people and share/express knowledge? However I occasionally come to read articles on Wikipedia. This is how my interest was piqued again because I saw The Old Jacobite had been exhibiting their charms at the page on the film: A Serious Man. It's been more than three years and they're still at it!! Come on Wikipedia sort this person out? Or don't you care about trends? For if you want this project to move forward - I strongly urge you to move people like to duties away from the general editing public otherwise by the law of diminishing returns, it could soon be just Jimbo Wales, you and them!! Yours, pp. Charles Vernacular [a pseudonym] 86.129.64.169 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've notified TOJ of this discussion. As per the rules at the top of the page, subjects of ANI discussions are required to be notified that they're being discussed. ETA - I belatedly noticed that you notified at User talk:TheOldJacobite/Alternate. I'm not sure how that Talk page relates to their actual Talk page. I'll also note that I'm not an admin; I'm just offering my two cents on the situation, and that I'm surprised that an editor with 3 contributions thus far and apparently little contact with TOJ is launching an ANI case.

Regarding the edit to Name of the Rose, while the edit summary may not quite have encapsulated the problem, when adding this kind of information a source should be provided that discusses the change. WP articles should not contain unsourced WP:TRIVIA; we establish that it isn't trivia by providing third-party sourcing.

While I wouldn't call TOJ the most diplomatic editor here, I do believe they mean well and are a net-positive contributor to the project.

Can you provide diffs indicating that you've spoken with them regarding your concerns, or did you opt to come here without engaging them? Doniago (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Doniago's assessment of this situation and TOJ is an asset to Wikipedia. Any trivia added needs a source and also proof that the item has been noted in secondary sources. Many years ago now consensus decided that Wikipedia was not going to become a repository of trivia and original research. Further it should be noted that as volunteers we edit as we chose. If a persons edits are removal of unsourced trivia or excess additions to plot or cast sections that is not a reason to call their usefulness to the project into question. Lastly it should be noted that this thread does not belong on this board and considering that there is little evidence that the IP has discussed this on the talk page for the film or with TOJ the thread should be closed ASAP. MarnetteD | Talk 22:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edit history for A Serious Man and I'm not seeing any problematic edits. I would encourage you to provide diffs illustrating the behaviors you find objectionable. I would note that WP:V grants editors the latitude to remove information which has not been reliably sourced. Doniago (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if you can provide diffs they belong at an RCF/U rather than on tis board. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There is that too. Or maybe at WP:ANI, but certainly not here. And either way, IP would be well-advised to present a more specific case with a significant number of diffs illustrating the alleged problematic editing. Doniago (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the IP should tell us why they are not editing from their account. Using IPs to avoid scrutiny of one's edits is against policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you know for a fact that the IP even has an account? Is it possible that this IP editor is just someone who prefers their anomymity and therefore does not wish to register an account? 134.241.58.153 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course I don't know it for a fact, but it's highly unlikely, considering. That's why we need the IP to tell us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the specific edit at The Name of the Rose (film) I support his edit. He provides a clear reason: it is unsourced. It is worth noting that WP:FILMDIFF discourages creating sections listing differences between the source material and an adaptation, unless the difference itself is actually discussed in that particular context. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that the anon. making this complaint is the same person who left this message some months ago on my alternate talk page, and left similar messages in the past. I would also guess that this has to be a registered editor I tangled with in the past who now prefers to post his scurrilous messages anonymously, like a coward.

I appreciate the responses above by other experienced editor who offered qualified defenses of my actions. I know that I have lost my temper in the past, and I will not offer excuses for doing so, but the anon's comments are ridiculous. At any rate, I don't think there is much more to say here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• We have a chronic problem that seems especially bad in the area of historical fiction wherein users think that reading a book and comparing it with a movie or with the historical record themselves somehow does not constitute original research. It does. Unless reliable sources explicitly mention these differences they should not be mentioned in articles. We do not, ever, use our own observations asa a basis for content. This doesn't mean the person making the observation is wrong just that they we as individuals are not considered reliable sources.

• The rest of this report is a nasty attack on the personal character of the reported user, making wildly inappropriate accusations. If you would like to have a discussion about a particular users long-term behavior you should file a request for comment on a user. I would suggest you need something a bit more substantive than what is presented here though. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Think of the children - history merge request

• Children's interest (rhetoric)

Request for admin(s) to help please with history merge request, prior pages have been deleted and redirected so many times, there are probably deleted edits that need to be merged together into the above page, prior AFDs:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think of the children
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think of the children (2nd nomination)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For The Children (politics)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the children (politics)

There may even be other deletion debates I'm not yet aware of, historically.

Also, I started a separate but also ongoing discussion for a Requested move at Talk:Children's interests (rhetoric).

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, could use some help surveying research from academic sources to find which term is the most common per WP:COMMONNAME to have as the article main title, whether that be "Think of the children", "What about the children", "For the children", or "Children's interests". — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, look at the history of For the children (politics). What a mess! I'm doing the merge for you now - Think of the children was the only one with actual deleted content. — Scott • talk 12:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done, I think. Let me know if you find something I screwed up, I've only done a few of these. — Scott • talk 12:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Did you check for deleted history at the above-mentioned redirects, as well? — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep; the article has been renamed so many times that the latter two AFDs you linked to are for the same article! The only one that actually got deleted was "Think of the children", now merged. Incidentally, well done for finding the most atrocious chain of renames I've ever seen. The number of bot edits that have been necessary to fix double redirects is outrageous. — Scott • talk 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Scott Martin (talk · contribs) for the help. — Cirt (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Epic redirect story

06:32, 2 June 2008‎ Phoenixrod moved For The Children (politics) to For the children (politics): Capitalization 05:52, 18 June 2010‎ Ninjagecko moved For the children (politics) to For the children (reasoning): title was semantically off / too narrow / causing confusion 01:39, 23 June 2010‎ ArtistScientist moved For the children (reasoning) to Children's interests (reasoning): "For the children" is a phrase with no reference. 01:24, 29 January 2011‎ TenPoundHammer moved Children's interests (reasoning) to Children's interests: why did this have a superfluous parenthetical? 08:48, 11 January 2012‎ Jack Greenmaven moved Children's interests to Children's interests (rhetoric): More specific, to suit theme of article

HistMerge

For User:ChrisGualtieri

He's redone the Dragon Ball Z article, and wishes to recreate it as an article instead of a redirect.

However, he uses old content from the old article before it was a redirect. Thus, he'll need a histmerge with [51] and his sandbox.

Don't shoot the messenger please :) Charmlet (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To be completely fair; the article was merged to Dragon Ball without going to AFD in 2008 or following usual conventions. Recently, I filed an RFC on MOS-AM to see if a manual of style can override policy on content creation rules; which affirmed it could not. Since the subject meets N and GNG, I recreated it after a concurrently RFC ended with a majority of support and few detractors arguing "per MOS-AM". My original move was reverted; but I've since got a 3O and massive amounts of IDHT from Ryulong and Lucia Black; both whom acknowledge it meets such standards; but they've got "content issues". I wanted it to go live so they can address those issues since by policy and their own admissions; it meets the requirements for its own article. Policies supported are N, GNG, SPINOFF, SIZE and DETAIL. Didn't expect this to end up here... but thanks to anyone willing to help solve this issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I should've notified you as well. But this isn't meant to be bad, if it were bad, it'd be an "incident" :) Charmlet (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You did mention me when you cited my name. I got notified by echo. Its how I found it in the first place. Anyways. If anyone has questions or whatever; I'll be happy to answer them. The sandbox I have in waiting is larger then the original franchise page which covers everything; its why I politely refuse any calls for merging my sandbox to that article as it would disrupt the flow of the original franchise page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added my sandbox contents; the article is now live. If objections occur from either party I'll move to DRN or MEDCOM per recent received advice. If the merge history can be done; that'd be great. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Chris has gone ahead with this edit despite opposition to his proposed version and this should not have been done without informing people in the actual discussion he was participating in.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Matter has moved to DRN; close/ignore this for now and that is false; you refuse to discuss and try to hold it off despite saying it meets GNG and N. That is the burden for inclusion. Not your "I have content issues with it". See you at DRN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You ignore all issues with your prose simply because you firmly believe that meeting WP:N and WP:GNG are all you need to create an article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for more eyes

• Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2013#Looking_for_closers

Hi.

There is a concern about whether cyberpower should be a closer for the discussion.

I suppose I should note that in the past cyberpower has closed discussions I have started and/or participated in, for/against/no consensus etc. So hopefully it should be clear that I have no bone with cyberpower (They appear to sincerely want to help.)

The question is merely whether, as they commented in the last round of discussing pending changes, whether it should be considered appropriate for them to now be a closer of this round.

I already expressed my thoughts on this there, but at the same time, I am merely one Wikipedian. So would some other neutral parties please take a look at the situation? And of course, obviously feel free to look me over as a closer as well : )

Thanks - jc37 05:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dragon Ball Z/sandbox

I saw this come up in new pages. Seems the article was originally created as Dragon Ball Z/sandbox and then moved to the talk page. Something escaped from someone's sandbox?

Taroaldo ✉ 07:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's being taken care of. Someone tried to create a sandbox outside of the userspace, fucked up, and now I've just requested to have them both deleted. What crawled up your butt about this?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you had taken care of it in the first place, instead of making a ridiculous move to a talk page and then saying you "didn't care" when I simply inquired about it at your talk page, then this trivial issue would have been solved quickly. What is with the dickish behaviour over a simple housekeeping matter? I don't even know you. geeze Taroaldo ✉ 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice you put a CSD on it. The reason I listed it here was so that an admin could check with the article's creator and maybe move it into their userpages, if that is what they wanted. I'm not comfortable doing those kinds of moves myself. Taroaldo ✉ 07:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Waste of time, its a cut & paste job of here anyway. See discussion here for further info. Also see request above RE histmerge. The misguided attempts to prevent an article going live are now resulting in the mistakes you can see here. Not to mention the incivility. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And now it's deleted. Time to focus on more important things.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@ryulong, you caused incivility. Dont go to another oage and blame me for what you caused. I only caused this indirectly, but this is on you. @Only in Death, youre not really here to help but to mock. Please refrain from keeping your opinions like that to yourself.Lucia Black (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC) So you want me to stop keeping my opinion to myself? I wasn't aware I had been. (This by the way, is mocking. Previously I was giving an accurate summary of the current situation.) If of course, you meant I *should* keep my opinion to myself, no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would probably recommend some other admins come in to sort of mediate. The main conversation going on here is at Talk:Dragon_Ball#DBZ_creation. Long story short, there is a proposal to create a page for DBZ. One user created a page that is English-centric as far as history goes and other editors felt it put undue weight upon the English dubs. Another user created another page for alternate edits, but in the wrong spot. Take no offense by this guys when I say that right now it's a right kerfuffle to get everything straight. I'm typing up a bit of a response to the page myself, but we could use someone a bit more experienced in mediation on there than myself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Its currently at Dispute Resolution however as Lucia is flat out refusing to participate, and Ryulong's position shifts every time his arguments are shown to be irrelevant, its again, a waste of time. Mediation requires that people participate in good faith, without that there can be no compromise or collaboration. I will give a potted history though.

2008 - The Dragonball Z article was merged into the Dragonball article on the basis of it failing the MOS-AM (Anime/Manga specific MOS) guideline. Local consensus should have been applied then however it didnt really come to light until later.

April 2013 - Quite clear consensus (taking into account arguments at Talk:Dragon_Ball and Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z that it should be a stand-alone article.

May 2013 - A village pump discussion came to the conclusion the original rationale for merging in 2008 (and one of the arguments to prevent splitting) was faulty/misguided.

Current status - Rather than just de-merging, Chris has quite nicely rewritten the Dragonball Z article (see his sandbox) and (as per the request a few sections above) is pretty much ready to be moved back into article space, with a hist-merge of his sandbox and the Dragonball Z hist. There is some (read 2 editors) opposition which at this point I am putting down to ownership issues. Chris has had no problems with people copy-editing his sandbox so willingness to collaborate on his part is not in question. However Ryulong's contribution was to blank entire sections and edit war over it. In a sandbox. Lucia - not really equipped to work together as can be seen from the discussions on the talkpages, or by her declaration of hatred of certain editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Village Pump discussion decided that the manual of style should be changed. It did not throw out any previous decisions made by that manual of style.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No the consensus from the discussions in April did that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop discussing about this here and start discussing elsewhere. I dont have to defend anything here, nor anywhere else.Lucia Black (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like more people in this matter; as it is obvious that it is not being able to be resolved by Lucia Black, Ryulong and myself. That is why I asked for a 3O and the RFC was made; but the circular mess created by their attempts to stall creation in stark opposition to policy is deafening. Lucia's professed hate of me alone means that the DRN will go no where and Ryulong doesn't want to cooperate either; I can't believe that two experienced editors of their status continually move the goal-post for recreation; rather than even mention the problems or what they want, the sandboxes "bloat" is because of my response to their criticisms. It can be trimmed; yes, but I see no reason why this cannot be dealt with in mainspace at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Passafire

I just AFC reviewed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Passafire (band). A Billboard source here confirms they put album into a top ten chart, which is also remarked in the Jamaica Observer, which claims they hit number one. They have a few other news hits too. In my view, therefore, the band passes criteria 2 of WP:NBAND, but when I tried to pass the article, I discovered Passafire had been salted - presumably before they became notable. Could an admin desalt this title please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Really? You're going to pass it as it stands at this time? I see 3 PATENTLY obvious problems (Referencing to en.Wikipedia, links to Amazon Product pages, no citation templates). Passing an article like this would be enough for a NPPer to strongly consider tag-bombing/considering deletion on an article like this. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm going to clean it up, nuke the existing sources, then add the decent sources I've found. Don't panic! I just wanted confirmation this article would withstand an AfD before I spent time on it. I did some of this already but threw my work away when the salt kicked in.. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I just unsalted the title when requested. I never said that the AfC submission should or shouldn't be accepted. That burden is on Ritchie. However I didn't find the request unreasonable and have faith that Ritchie would not have requested it if he didn't believe it could be helpful. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

House keeping

Can an admin please delete and cleanup Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Templates_removed_or_updated_-_deletion_pending_automatic_emptying_of_category (all of the empty cats)? Werieth (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Huge backlog at WP:MFD

WP:MFD is so backlogged that it's creating template overflow, thus causing some of the logs not to transclude properly. The backlog stretches all the way back to May 29, and should really be tended to ASAP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The backlog is on account of the absurd nominations being made. For example, how can it be useful to nominate for deletion Talk subpages pages that were empty and had no problematic content in their history? And why is there any need to delete userspace subpages, again without problematic content? Just blank them, or leave them blanked rather than bother everybody else. Thincat (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness those /Comments subpages clearly met CSD criteria but one admin decided it needed to go to MFD. When I took the issue to ANI no one had the time to comment, so I submitted them to MFD. Kumioko (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, they didn't (or at least not all of them). A nomination like [52] this one was incorrect, the page had non-vandalistic history. That is was later blanked is hardly a reason to speedy delete it. Getting a consensus first that these can be speedy deleted would have been a lot better. Fram (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your missing a couple of key points here Fram in your pointy attempt to prove me wrong. That is one exception of hundreds, there is little value in retaining a comment from 2007 about assessment of the article when its now an FA and the content isn't gone for good. It can still be visible by any one of the 1400+ admins. So if anyone wonders what's there on that 6+ year old comment all they need to do is ask. Or, you could do a history merge with the talk page, or you could copy the comments to the talk page. But the bottom line is we have no need for these /Comments subpages when the use has been deprecated for more than 4 years and the vaste majority contain nothing of use. Kumioko (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

One exception? You have checked all the others? Things like Talk:Jeff Buckley/Comments or Talk:Jane Annie/Comments? The rest of your comments are not applicable, they don't address my point and where you are wrong at all. I have not argued that these pages should necessarily be kept, I only argued why your argument that they "clearly met speedy criteria" is wrong. Not the first time I had to do this, in this comments situation and in general, but it doesn't seem to register that even when deletion is warranted, it doesn't mean that speedy is applicable or that you can use whichever speedy criterion you want. There is little value in keeping talk page archives from 2007 either, but we don't speedy delete these. Why make an exception here? You can argue that the minority (?) of useful comments doesn't warrant keeping them all around, with the many problematic ones that are included; but that's a discussion one can make, like we had about the new G13 speedy criterion. you were jumping the gun, going outside policy, and then complaining when you get reverted or when it is pointed out to you where you went wrong. Fram (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fram, these pages were deprecated. They are not used anymore for a reason. I looked at the history of those 2 as well that you mention, nothing worth keeping. May we lose a couple of meaningful comments that still have value from 5 or 6 years ago? I suppose its possible, but unlikely. I am also not going outside policy and I didn't do anything wrong. Just because you think we need to keep this trash around doesn't mean I violated policy. I submitted to CSD and 15 different admins all agreed and deleted some. Not 1 or 2, 15 different admins. But 1 admin, Nyttend decided it was against policy, reverted them, threatened to block me and so I had to submit them to MFD. So here we are. Arguing at MFD why we should keep a bunch of garbage pages that have absolutely ZERO value. I would also add that if I had the ability to do a history merge of the ones that were appropriate I would. But since you and a bunch of others think I am unfit to be an admin I don't have access to the tools. I would be happy to do the work, but I can't, so that means you and the other 1399 admins have to do something that I am willing and capable to do myself. You don't like doing it, then don't and leave it to someone else.Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some examples of what you are trying to save:

1. Talk:Era Vulgaris (album)/Comments - Might be worth keeping
2. Talk:Eragon/Comments - Nothing but vandalism
3. Talk:Eschatology (Adventist)/Comments - Nothing but nonsense
4. Talk:Eugene Hütz/Comments - More nonsense
5. Talk:European cuisine/Comments - Nothing here worth keeping
6. Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Comments - or here
7. Talk:Everett T. Moore/Comments - already moved to the talk page
8. Talk:Extrasolar planet/Comments - Nope no value here
9. Talk:Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing/Comments - already moved to talk page
10. Talk:Ezra Taft Benson/Comments - Already moved to talk page

So that's one, out of the first ten and even then we wouldn't be losing much. I spot checked a bunch more and its more of the same and I already went through this entire list once. The only comments worth keeping have already mostly been moved to the talk pages.Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I think we need to overhaul MFD to bring it into line with every other XFD, with dated categories etc. so we can better monitor them, make it more efficient, and prevent further backlogs. GiantSnowman 13:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Kumioko (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since many pages are nominated with the same pattern, then the discussion should be centralised. We can close everything as speedy keep and then resume a centralised discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Or, if things are nominated in a similar manner and it's causing template transclusion problems, why not stick them in one MFD and decide there whether it's worth it to keep them or not? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the Idea that Giant Snowman had above. I think it would be good to redesign this like the other for deletion venues already do things. This has come up and been approved a couple times before but I guess no one had the time or technical ability to do it. If approved I would be happy to build the structure. We would also need to modify Twinkle and the Page curation tool. Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that while this discussion has been ongoing a large part of he backlog has been handled. There's still some bits here and there but it is no longer a "massive" backlog. Of course that does not preclude the possibility of opening a discussion of overhauling MFD at whatever page is appropriate for that discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

user:63.198.186.90 and Selim I

A permanent IP removing information in articles about Ottoman rulers. [53] The article is also under "heavy attack" let's say. [54] --Chauahuasachca (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The information the IP is currently removing appears to be a completely unsourced statement. I'm not seeing that there's a problem there - or more accurately, I'm not seeing that it constitutes vandalism rather than taking legitimate issue with text. His other contributions do appear to be problematic, so I've blocked him for a week and we'll see what happens, but I'd appreciate if you'd find a source for the statement or remove it yourself. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

He's continuing with another IP adress...--Chauahuasachca (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal issues with a TFA candidate?

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.

---

Those who need to know, do.

The nomination for London Necropolis Company to be Today's featured article has been removed due to unspecified "legal issues" on at least two occasions now. [55][56]. Why on earth do we have a situation where we have an article with legal issues that are left unresolved for a long time (the first nomination was in October 2012)? Either there are valid legal issues which need to be addressed (and the article should not be featured until they are) or there is no reason to summarily remove the nomination. I was under the impression that this was exactly the sort of thing WP:OFFICE was set up to handle? Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I'm also totally confused. If by "legal issues" they mean "something Foundation-directed", Thryduulf is right. If they mean something OTRS-sourced, be transparent about what's going on here - point to a ticket. If it's neither Foundation-directed nor OTRS-sourced then be entirely transparent about what it is. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Why haven't you asked the person who mentionned said "issues"? I've pinged User:Iridescent for clarifications. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Me? Because I was merely noting my confusion ;p. Iridescent has now dropped me a line, and seems to have a legitimate point, but I do hope that it's a legitimate point that can be handled transparently via WP:OFFICE - if only so they don't have to keep having this discussion. I can't imagine it's particularly enjoyable ;p. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Are you able to share the legitimate point? :) Dusti*poke* 15:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I'm uncomfortable doing so, particularly given my other hat - which I appreciate is sort of exacerbating the problem. Sorry :/. For what it's worth, I understand that WMF legal have been asked to look into the problem. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I only withdrew the nomination because "legal issues" came up but just like other people I am in the dark as well. Having no e-mail I don't know what they are. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Iridescent has made me aware of the nature of his concerns. Suffice it to say that while there is nothing wrong with the article or its featured status, his suggestion that it not be mainpaged is a reasonable one. I too would prefer not to get into additional detail on-wiki. I note in passing that Iridescent himself is the main contributor to this article and to its reaching featured status. While this of course does not give him veto power over the article's future, it does suggest that he knows what he is talking about, and I would add that my impressions of him during his all-too-brief tenure as an arbitrator corroborate that view. (Over the years I have found Iridescent's views of Wikipedia to be consistently sound, with the obvious exception of the times he criticized me.) In addition, the fact that it is the author himself who is saying "there are good reasons not to mainpage this article" also means that by following that suggestion, we would not be unfairly depriving an unsuspecting contributor of featured content of his and his prose's time in the spotlight, since it is the author himself saying that for legitimate reasons it is a bad idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Y'all do realize that the secrecy may end up bringing the Streisand effect upon the article, right? This is not to say I want to know the "legal issues"; I trust Iridescent's judgment. Just remember the old saying: two men can keep a secret only if one is dead. The "legal issues" which are (likely for a very good reason) kept secret may end up coming to the light of day if too many people know about them and there is enough interest in them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing for the sake of discretion.

Regardless of what the actual reasons are (I trust the judgment of those who seem to be in the know), I'm not aware that secret requirements not to be highlighted on the main page are entirely compatible with the cc-by-sa license. Would a reuser be unwittingly getting themselves or others into legal trouble if they chose to make a big deal about the article (which the license grants them the right to do)? If so, I don't think that we should be hosting this content. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I should make it clear that I'm thinking of the general case here as well as the specific one. If there are legal issues with an article (of whatever nature and for whatever reason) surely we have a duty to editors and reusers to either not include the problematic content or at the very least to warn the users that legal issues exist (as we do with fair use images for example)? Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I'm strongly tempted to take this to Wikipedia:Featured article review. Something that can't appear on the main page doesn't deserve to be featured. Moreover, FAs can have problems if they're fixable, but Iridescent's refusal to specify what we can do to fix this article's problems means that there's nothing we can do to get this article to the point that it belongs on the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I'm unsure where you get the idea that "something that can't appear on the main page doesn't deserve to be featured". Per WP:WIAFA and the instructions at WP:FAR, this article is not a candidate for review, and I suggest that considering the reasonable posts and information here from both Newyorkbrad and Iridescent-- two measured users-- taking it to FAR would be disruptive and drama-provoking (and the FAR will likely be closed). Perhaps some folks here could let this go now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Please don't take this article to FAR either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I've just nominated this for Afd due to the legal and licensing issues. AndreaGail2013 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Strange move for a newly registered account. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Necropolis Company. Welcome to the drama boards, where even a simple matter that should quietly die draws attention like flies on honey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC) And why not just leave this to be dealt with by the people who actually understand the issues rather than piling on in a state of ignorance? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Deletion, FAR review, or other actions relating to the article are not necessary. Please just don't put it on the mainpage, consistent with the request of (among others) the principal author of the article. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Note: I've closed the AfD as a "speedy keep" — Ched :  ?  18:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see any logic -- Main page or not, the article is currently public. Either it's fine for the article to be public, in which case TFA is okay, or it is not fine for the article to be public, in which case it should be blanked/protected until WMF Legal resolves the issues preventing the article from being public. You can't have an article be live and public, but try to "hide" it by not TFA'ing it. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Sure you can. There are a few articles which, for one reason or another, will not be mainpaged; that doesn't mean said articles should be deleted. Not to mention the main author doesn't want it mainpaged, and any discussion at WP:TFAR would find opposition to it being scheduled. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC) As I have now been inducted into "those in the know", I understand more of what is going on. There should not be any cc-by-sa issues, but at least one type of reuser in at least some legal jurisdictions are in exactly the same boat as us. As such I remain unconvinced that the present situation is an example of us acting in a responsible manner towards our reusers. This article should be under the wing of the OFFICE and I'm surprised that they have not enacted temporary measures while they consider the best way forward for the long term. The issue is not with the article's suitability for the main page, but that being on the main page would render ineffective the security by obscurity that is currently protecting Wikipedia and/or individuals (I don't know enough about the relevant laws to say which) from these legal issues. It might have worked in the early days of Wikipedia, but those days are long gone. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Well, it's ok that someone says hold on until we figure something we cannot disclose out but it's obviously not a permanant solution. It has something to do with the logo, panorama, a blp, Muslims or . . . I take it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Would it help if either a list was made of FAs which ought not be run on the mainpage, or a note placed on the talk page of each such article? In my opinion, it would be better than having a request come to TFA/R, having it rejected with a vague response, a kerfuffle coming to boards like this, then a request coming again in a few months. The note that it shouldn't be TFA doesn't have to go into any detail, but as it stands, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to know these articles shouldn't run without "being in the know" or being around a long time. The only other article I know in a vaguely similar position is The Story of Miss Moppet (because I was around when it was at TFA/R). Note: I am not one who is "in the know". Chris857 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Raul654 maintains a very small list of featured articles that he does not intend to have appear on the main page. —WP:TFA No clue where said list can be found, if anywhere, but apparently it exists. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Well, this " insider" is at a complete loss as to what the issue is. I can find no clue in the public or private logs of this page as to what the alleged issue is. If the front office has some reason to not want this on the main page it would be nice if they would at least say so, even if they can't exactly tell us why. I can't imagine a circumstance where it is ok for us to have an article on a subject but not ok to feature it on the main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC) As I understand it from the comments of others, it could lead to legal issues if the article was publicized/made public. Are there, then, any objections to temporarily making it not public until WMF Legal has taken a decision as to whether the project can handle such an article? If having it displayed prominently would lead to problems, I would think it irresponsible to STILL leave it public for anyone to find, and potentially reuse, unaware of the implications. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) The reasoning is that Iridescent and others believe that this article appearing on the front page would make it very likely that a certain action would take place, which in turn could easily lead to the Foundation and/or one or more editors getting caught up in legal issues that at present do not involve Wikipedia or the Foundation. I cannot disagree that this article on the main page would make the action more likely to occur. If it does occur, it is not guaranteed that the undesired consequences will happen, but I have no reason to doubt Iridescent et al's belief they would be at least likely. I do not agree though that this means not having it on the main page but still having it open for editing is a sensible position to be in for ourselves or for our reusers - the action could still happen at any time. As the action hasn't (to my knowledge) happened yet, even though there is no reason why it could not have done, there will be no record of it in the page logs. It should never be the job of a small group of users in the know to protect Wikipedia and its users from legal trouble they do not know about (and for the majority of users there is no reason why they would know) - we have the Office and its trained staff to do the job. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Without going too much into the details, the main concerns appear to be that there is a fear that the article may run foul of copyright claims relating to photographs and/or contempt of court issues relating to discussions of the London Necropolis Company, and that the WMF could be vulnerable as there is no equivalent to the US CDA's S230 protections in UK law. Having thought about this during the course of the day, I think these concerns are probably overblown. The article's photos appear to be properly licensed and I don't think it would be viable for the LNC to try to claim copyright over images taken by others on its property. There certainly would not be any UK exposure for the WMF as it has no legal presence in the UK. Above all, the article already exists; if there was really a substantial issue I can't imagine that WMF legal would have let it stay on Wikipedia. This leaves the risk that someone might add something legally problematic during its appearance on the Main Page. The thing is, though, that risk already exists, and it would devolve to editors rather than the WMF in any case. As long as the article is well-watchlisted – and I would suggest semi-protection might be worth implementing to guard against mischief-making – I don't think it's likely to be a problematic TFA. But getting the WMF legal view beforehand would be a very good idea in any case. Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Ah; Thryduulf's reply offers a satisfactory explanation AFAIAC. I still think it might be prudent to err on the side of caution and unpublish the article until WMF Legal is comfortable, though. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Take it down. If it opens Wikipedia editors who edit this article and will (some unsuspectingly) continue to edit this article to liability -- take it down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)×3 As I understand it, protection would be sufficient to avoid legal issues for us but not necessarily for any reusers who modified (or allowed others to modify) their copy of the content. I would have no objections to either protection or unpublishing pending the Foundation's judgement. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I would suggest that nobody do anything. If the front office has some semi-secret reason to be concerned then it is they who should be dealing with this. I know I won't be touching it unless and until it is more clear what is going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Fix or delete, and do it now. If there is some inexplicable (literally) reason, that we the mere peons aren't allowed to know about, then act on it and fix the issue or delete the article. The article is already published. Frontpaging it matters not one jot to any legal issue of copyright or whatever. If we're short of front page content, then I'd suggest Streisand effect. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) My initial comments in this thread are currently hidden in a box that now encloses only a small portion of the discussion. I wish they enclosed the entire discussion and that editors would resist the temptation to speculate further. Based on what I know, and in the absence of some input from the Office (meaning the Foundation legal team), I know of no need to protect, delete, or unfeature this article, nor to discuss it further here. However, it should not be mainpaged right now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

2013 protests in Turkey

There seems to be a number of sneaky removal of content by some IPs in particular while others make constructive edits. I think semi-protection may be an overreaction but more eyes could be appreciated. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• The more material removed from that almost 200K long article, the better. There is actually very little IP activity in that article. I assume you're referring to "sneaky" edits like this one? They gave a reason, and you simply reverted. At any rate, there is way too little of what can pass as IP vandalism to warrant semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed

An arbitration case regarding the article Juan Manuel de Rosas has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Cambalachero is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
2. MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
3. Lecen is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

This is only a notice, please follow the link above if you want to discuss the matter. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's that useless, abusive and frustrating broadly construed language again. When will we finally learn that we need to do these determinations to be measurable? If you can't measure it, you cannot manage it. You cannot measure or manage "broadly construed. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Can I suggest that rather than adding exactly the same comments to multiple threads, Kumioko might do better to start a centralised discussion of the use of "broadly construed" in such instances. Frankly, it is getting somewhat tedious to see the same comment time and time again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Harrassing admins into reversing decisions

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.

---

Seriously?

I really don't know what I hope to accomplish by posting this here. Probably nothing will come of it, but I'm honestly getting sick and fucking tired of seeing admins step up to perform the duties we voted them in for, only to get harassed and browbeaten into saying "fuck this", reversing their action, and walking off. The whining at User_talk:Tariqabjotu#hmmm is just way over the top, especially as it comes on the heels of this which has led to this move review. And yes, note the reoccurring names, e.g. Obiwankenobi and Timrollpickering. (With our new shiny notification system, I consider that a satisfaction of the "must notify").

What's been going on around here the last few weeks regarding female/women-oriented articles and issues is just...not right. At all. I hate to post and run, but my future hangover awaits. Tarc (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• OMG. The poor admin tried to close a move discussion to change the title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) to something a little less 1950s. If the subject is notable, use some reasonable method to name the article; otherwise, delete it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think I'll let GOF's words speak for themselves: [57]. The quote is useful: "You may not agree with what Obiwan has done or what I have done at various stages, but I don't feel that Obiwan "harrangued", "harassed", or "badgered" me. We had a relatively pleasant discussion about it and exchanged our views. To be able to do that on WP is refreshing and I think it's a big part of what WP should strive to be. I reversed my reversal as an act of good faith after our discussion; I did not really change my views on the substance of the matter, but I trust that things can be worked out at "move review".

Also note that I've apologized to Tariqabjotu - I really did *not* mean to harass them, I was simply asking questions about their move. I've certainly gotten a lot of pointed questions about the recent move I did. Tarc, are you saying you're going to defend me from accusations of bad faith, sexism, misogyny, incompetence, and whatever else has been launched at me in the Hillary Clinton move review? That would be weird, as most of that came FROM you. Wouldn't you be thrilled, actually, if I reversed my close and walked off?

To the point here, a few other users piled on Tariqabjotu's page, language got a little contentious, and my last message was basically "Hey guys, let's assume good faith, and give the admin time to respond". In any case, I hope I can be even more civil next time around. Am still learning... :The most ironic part about all of this is, after Tariqabjotu decided to reverse their close, Tarc comes here to complain about admins being browbeaten into changing their minds, and then he goes to Tariqabjotu's page to ask if they will change their mind. Sometimes, wikipedia is stranger than fiction...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is patently absurd. There is a distinct difference between what Tarc is asking and what you were asking. Tarc is asking me to reconsider because he wants me to stick to my guns. You were asking me to reconsider because you want me to do what you wanted. They're totally different. He is absolutely correct in describing your remarks, and the remarks of the others who commented there, as browbeating. I twice told you to take the matter to WP:RM if you had an issue with it, and yet you persisted with this "give him time to explain" nonsense (oh, which I even did). Your initial query was acceptable, but we have avenues to contest moves (and other admin decisions) so you don't need to pester the acting admin. And while I rarely (never before?) have reversed an action based on such pestering, I was willing to make an exception here because I believe any closure of that discussion would be acceptable. I also only happened upon that article because I saw it linked from the move review for Hillary Clinton, and I was more than happy to instead withdraw my endorsement there. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to be civil, and follow the process; that's all; I was hoping to have a quick discussion instead of dragging the whole mess to Move review. Anyway, I respect your decision, and am sorry if you felt like I was browbeating you, it was not intended that way. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• More choice quotes from Tarc, to GOF, commenting on his recent admin action, to undo his previous admin action [58] "What the hell is going on?... This is fucking ridiculous." I think the only pattern I can discern here is that, when an admin performs an action Tarc agrees with, all is good, and everyone should leave that admin alone. But if someone else convinces said admin to change their mind, the admin has been brow-beaten, and when an admin performs an action Tarc disagrees with, he feels free to go to their page to ask them to change their minds, AGAIN.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My observation; although I commented briefly on the RM - you've expended an extreme amount of energy on this topic, to the level where I'd say it's becoming a problem. It might be worth considering if this is such a critically important issue it is really worth having yet more kb of discussion, or whether it might be more useful to actually try and contribute some actual content. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll understand that, when I'm accused of incompetence, supervoting, sexism, misogyny, and worse, that I spend a few kb of text to defend myself. I didn't bring this to AN, and I don't even know what the point of this discussion is, so if you want to close it as "nothing left to do" feel free. I'm happy to drop this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This should probably be at ANI, not AN. But, indeed, I have no idea what you intend to accomplish here. Is your criticism with me for reversing my decision or with the two other users you mention for bothering me? Regardless, this is a volunteer project, and no one should be compelled to do anything here. Note that I did not move the article in accordance with their wishes; I just reversed my decision and let someone else deal with it. Where that article is located is about the least important thing in my life right now. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment I simply don't get it, unless this thread is the result of 'previous' disputes (which I've no knowledge of). With the Sarah Brown article, there had been a number of lengthy renaming discussions which had each resulted in 'no consensus' decisions. It was a bold move by Tariqabjotu to rename it, but it is not unreasonable to ask them to explain their decision (they had only explained why they thought the previous name was innappropriate). I don't see browbeating or harassment - in fact I would consider comments from Tariqabjotu such as this reply to be uncivil at best. Sionk (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Just to clarify the two cases Tarc is talking about: Here's the history with regard to Sarah Brown (which puzzled me but I think I have it straight now): Obiwan posted a couple of arguments on Tariq's talk page about this close. Sionk and Timrollpickering joined in to second what Obiwan was saying. Tariq closed that talk page discussion saying "I'm done here" and reverted his own close of the Sarah Brown article, then un-reverted it a couple of hours later. Obiwan then filed a RMV discussion. Previously, Obiwan posted several arguments on Good Ol'Factory's talk page, about GOF overturning Obiwan's NAC close of Hillary Rodham Clinton; GOF took Obiwan's comments in good faith and restored Obiwan's close (also now at MRV). I am neutral, except to say that I think several of the parties have been somewhat uncivil, with the biggest offender being Tarc who filed this notice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - sigh, would be better to stay out of this, but also not bad to have all the diffs in one place. Last month, this CfD was closed by an admin, stating consensus was to merge categories back to American novelists. Pretty quickly thereafter, that category was completely dispersed. In my view there were an overabundance of messages strewn across a variety of user talk pages, article talk pages, and a variety of other places. The Hilary Clinton move was contested here and brought to move review here. Then there's the Sarah Jane Brown (I'm assuming we have a redirect because this article has changed names twice in 24 hours), now also at move review. For each of these cases there's been a pattern of an overabundance of posts scattered in various places and not kept in one place. The most worrying, though, is that each of these instances is about women: taking women out of the American novelists categories, and renaming the wives of two world leaders. I think that, although seemingly incivil, Tarc has a point. Victoria (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How is that worrying? Sionk (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Recommend closing - I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere, and I don't think any administrative action is needed here, other than to perhaps remind people to assume good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Tariq advises Obi to take it to review if he has concerns with the close. Rather than respect that, Obi continues to push. That's badgering. I'm worried by this editor's pushiness. I'm not suggesting action now, but I'm glad it's been aired here, so Obi might take the opportunity to reflect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is badgering? I ask a simple question, the closing admin doesn't ANSWER the question and tells me to take it to move review, and I respond thusly: [59] - basically, restating the question more clearly, explaining why I'm asking him and NOT dragging it to move review right away - that's the guidance - you ask the closer first. I didn't know other editors would pile on and raise the temperature, so I tried to cool things down and tell people to AGF, mentioning that the closer had previously done a difficult move and had done so thoughtfully: [60], and thus I was confident there was an explanation. Indeed, once the closer unclosed, and RE-closed, he explained further his reasoning in his second closing statement. I was asking for nothing more. And in any case, I apologized, there, and here, already, so I've already done my reflection, thank you very much.

My question is, if this is badgering, what do you call Tarc calling me a misogynist, then standing his ground when asked to strike it User_talk:Tarc#Please_strike_uncivil_comment, and to add to that, off-wiki, using the following colorful language towards other editors:

• "You are a fucked-in-the-head cunt.... You are nobody. You do not matter.... You are a fucking psychopath.... Jesus fucking christ, you are insane."
• "I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you . Your pathetic argument has been nothing more than 'we shan't offend', an argument bruised aside with ease. I pity you bleeding-heart types. Truly."

Meanwhile, I don't see anyone rushing to my rescue, for all of the sh*t and namecalling I've had to endure over at the Hillary Clinton move review for a good faith, if ultimately contentious, close, that had the dramatic and likely sexist in Tarc's mind result of moving her article to the same title which is in 72-point-bold-font on Hillary Clinton's website (http://hillaryclintonoffice.com/). Perhaps her webmaster is a misogynist too who hates Hillary Clinton? I can't think of any other explanation for why they would do that.

But I'm not an IRC fiend, or a friend-of-powerful-people here, so I get nailed to the wall and bullies like Tarc roam free.

And you, Anthonyhcole, I have had good discussions with you, but you still insist on calling me a sexist, here, and off-wiki, and refuse to relent, for the crime of supporting a consensus-based and policy-based title of an article which had been there for several years, which is supported by thousands of reliable sources, which is supported by the preface of the book written by the subject, and which was even noted to be non-sexist and aligned with policy by the the admin who closed *that* discussion (he said: "I'm hesitant to call the previous name "sexist", as I'm sure that was a good-faith, reasonable attempt to come up with a way to disambiguate this Sarah Brown (in the absence of a formal title); for better or worse, it seems like she's primarily known as the wife of Gordon Brown". But no, it doesn't matter, I'm still a sexist in spite of all that, thus sayeth Anthonyhcole.

WP:NPA is a policy, not an essay. Why don't you and Tarc try reading it, and doing some reflection of your own.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My my, who peed in your cornflakes this morning? First off, I think Anthony will take it as a grave insult to be compared to the likes of me, please apologize to him. Second, those alleged quotes that you attribute to me are

a) from an off-wiki web forum

b) directed at a long-banned Wikipedia user

c) are being snipped by Obi-wan out of the context of a larger discussion where both I and the target were being rather nasty to each other. I give and I take in equal measure.

If someone is just skimming Obiwan's Wall-o'-Text^(tm), I don't want them to have the mistaken impression that that text represents on-wiki activity in the slightest. WP:NPA does not apply outside of the project, anymore than a public school could sanction a student for saying "fuck" in his or her own home, or that my no-smoking workplace could penalize me for lighting the cigarette that currently sits in my hand.

I honestly feel this thread has run its brief course, and if an admin wants to mark it closed/resolved/archives, it'd be appreciated. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Deletion request

Could an admin please process this? Thanks. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bots are supposed to delete pages there, if I remember rightly. Is a bot down? Nyttend (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The "manual" page is handled, well manually. ;) Legoktm (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope user talk page

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

---

See User talk:Scientistali--Musamies (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Where was your attempt to discuss the matter before raising it at AN? Where was your notification to the user in question about the discussion at AN? GiantSnowman 14:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

He is a new user. His user page isn't so out of the ordinary for a user page, although he has yet to edit an article. I would say wait and see what else he does. And what GS said, too. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with his user page? This is a non-issue ★★RetroLord★★ 14:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It was the user talk page which used to look like this but now looks like this. GiantSnowman 14:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, simple new user mistakes. Not so unusual. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I've cleared the board--except for my own request. Can someone have a look please? Drmies (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor A/B test back on

Hey all. We're looking to start the A/B test in a couple of hours. My sincere apologies for the short notice :/. If you notice any new bugs, or any substantial problems, please bring them to us as soon as possible so we can resolve them; we'll be monitoring the situation closely and will be able (and willing!) to disable it or put the test off if there's something big that needs resolving. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This still seems dangerously premature, because VE is still making unasked-for format-changing edits in parts of the article away from where it has been asked to edit. I have this minute repeated this test where I changed only one word, but VE altered the formatting higher up, and there have been numerous other recent reports like:

• WP:VisualEditor/Feedback#VE makes changes to formatting on lines that are not being directly edited
• WP:VisualEditor/Feedback#Unwanted change to named ref
• WP:VisualEditor/Feedback#Makes extra changes

If we are throwing it open to newbies who will not check for unwanted side-effects, there seems a substantial risk of articles being damaged. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty disingenuous to apologize for the short notice when there was absolutely no reason to rush to deploy this test. What, exactly, are you apologizing for? It also seems pretty disingenuous to pretend as though you'll disable the test when a number of editors have repeatedly called the test premature and destructive. I guess it makes it okay if you start with "Hey all" and throw in an emoticon, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

John, MZ, I'm going to monitor Special:Contributions/newbies this week and try to review all edits with the VisualEditor tag, looking for breakage and abandoned messes. Also, just spoke to Philippe about this, and he assures me that if a significant amount of trouble comes down the chute, it will be shut off. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how me being sorry for the short notice for the test has anything to do with your feelings as to the test's necessity; I'm apologising that we've taken an action that has potential ramifications for the community without giving the community more of a heads-up. We're not pretending; we will disable it if it's screwy. If you've been paying attention, you'll note that this was initially scheduled for last week...but that we called it off because we thought that serious problems were a surefire thing. Can't ask for better evidence we'll shut things down than us actually shutting things down. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain to me, using smaller words, how it's possible to apologize for a completely voluntary action? Rather than giving short notice and apologizing, you could simply give sufficient notice and wait (there's no rush). Or better yet, not run a premature test at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here, can you explain to the community your plan to disable the test? Do you have a maintenance script written to undo this user preference for every new user you've set VisualEditor on for? And what constitutes being "screwy"? Stripping HTML comments? Mangling references? Loading content from a completely different wiki? Spurious <nowiki> tags being inserted into the page? Go on, explain just how screwy VisualEditor needs to be before you'll consider disabling it.

Finally, can you explain why you feel it's appropriate for our newest editors, the ones who've been told for eleven years to use [[this]] to make a link and to use {{this}} to insert a template are the people who should be targeted for an opt-out experiment? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the whole point of "newest" imply they have no previous experience editing? I know that in reality it means "just registered an account" and hasn't edited yet, but theoretically they wouldn't have previous knowledge of {{template}} and [[link]].. The whole reason they are targeting new users (from my understanding) is they're the ones who don't know the { } [ ] < > type coding stuff, and so they're the ones who need a visual editor the most. Charmlet (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No. They have previous knowledge having used the default wikitext editor. When they try to use regular wikimarkup in their edits, VisualEditor mangles their inputs. It remains completely unclear why new users are being targeted. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, you're saying that completely newly registered accounts who've (unless as an IP) never used the Wikipedia editing box have knowledge using Wikimarkup? Remember that this only targets newly registered accounts, not accounts that've already made edits. Charmlet (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I spent a good portion of yesterday looking at every VisualEditor edit. Please do your homework before questioning whether I know what I'm talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not to be a hard ass or anything; but if duplicate small and big formatting issues are piled up in any article like that, it probably is a really rare case. Can it be addressed; certainly; but at this stage it seems to be a bit harsh to consider duplicate small and big templates as a valid reason to stop testing. Why not just parse out these pages and watch them for the time being? I'm certain only a few hundred cases would exist at most; and many are probably broken in some other fashion. If you want, I can take a crack at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Less than 500 cases combined in article space it seems. It is at User:ChrisGualtieri/ListforVE. Probably not all exhaustive, but the big big issue is one that is probably unnecessary. Outside of article space the count was much higher... a lot of old talk page archives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The "big big" issue is not important in itself, but as an example of VE making unexpected changes away from the area being edited, although the User guide says that "In general" it should never do that. When I read that the A/B test was on again, I hoped that meant the problem had been fixed, and repeated that quick demonstration test from a few days ago, to discover that it had not. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the issue isn't important by itself; but I believe that some extensive testing was used prior to the rollout, and this rare example - which should almost universally go to single small/big templates, is not a high priority fix. I don't expect perfection with it, but if this is the only example seen thus far, that's not the worse-case scenario. Though I do agree with your assessment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The big-big issue is certainly not a high-priority one, but it is far from "the only example seen thus far"; it is only a trivial demonstration of the serious issue, which is that VE still makes unexpected changes in parts of the page it was not asked to edit. I'm sure there was extensive testing, but the product is very far from problem-free - see the Bugzilla list and the 24 new reports in the last 24 hours at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback. Problems are still being found which seem quite elementary, like loss of all formatting on copy-paste. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that we have User:Charmlet/VE-notice and User:Charmlet/VE-user for when the need to revert buggy VisualEditor edits arises. MER-C 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone can feel free to move them to Template: something if you'd like, I couldn't come up with a good name. Charmlet (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those, Charmlet. Just used one. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that looks good - I tried VE on Hyderabad and it mangled up the code in images with alt text - we cleaned it up but it took some time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried it implementing peer review comments at Thaddeus Stevens and wound up having to redo everything because it messed up the formatting. Didn't make my day.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely it says something when long-time users are having difficulty with VE (myself included) and it's being enabled for half of all new users... bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court decisions

Could someone semi-protect (or consider semi-protecting) Defense of Marriage Act, Hollingsworth v. Perry, and California Proposition 8? I'm already reverting too much and don't feel that the edits to the articles are egregious enough for me to say at this point that I can protect the articles on my own despite my involvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, things seems to have quieted down, at least for the moment, so semi-protection may be premature. Perhaps the best course of action would be just to keep an eye on the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Can people also watch Vance v. Ball State University, the recent harassment case? Bearian (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll watch these articles, and would be happy to consider semi-protecting them if things get worse. Feel free to drop me a line directly on my talkpage if you'd like me to review them again, as I may or may not be able to keep up on them in real time. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please close debate

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

---

After over a month of debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates, my count of the responses is 8 keep, 8 remove and 1 in the middle. I am fairly certain this should be closed no consensus, but await an admin to put this 8 week debate to rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you sent out a batch of talk-page notifications on the 25th (including one to me, who had already commented), there have been some new opinions registered—one just a quarter of an hour ago. I'd give it a little more time, myself, but you may be right. (And I make the current count 9–11–1, for what that's worth.) Deor (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that since the RFC bot (talk · contribs) just closed the debate, I would call for closure here. I just got around to reading WP:POST and saw the discussion listed there last week. It will probably be listed there again this week. So I will give it another week. I may even see if there are other ways to broaden the responses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You might try WikiProject Biography, since the discusion deals specifically with the use of navboxes in biographical articles, and those particular articles are within the purview of the project's "Arts and entertainment" working group. Deor (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Account creator user right

Would an admin please action this RFC closure, the closer (User:Nathan Johnson) couldn't himself because he isn't an admin. A list of users who have the account creator right and are not active on the ACC tool can be found here. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why can't he close it?--v/r - TP 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

He has closed it, but he hasn't actioned that closure, as only admins can remove user rights. Nathan's closure means that the account creator user right will need to be removed from all the users on Callanecc's list. I'd do it myself, but it's late here now, and there are a lot of users on the list. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

But he can update the policy to reflect the RFC.--v/r - TP 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc: Can you cross reference that list with the Staff and Sysop lists and remove folks who would otherwise have the same rights from any alternate accounts they might have?--v/r - TP 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, how does your RFC deal with situations like this? He registers folks accounts in person and not on the ACC tool.--v/r - TP 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now gone down 5 on that list and everyone of them had a valid reason to have account creator: Staff working with students, course instructors, and a self-appointed volunteer at universities. So I think more thought needs to go into that list before anyone acts on your RFC.--v/r - TP 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm 1 for 12 now. I think serious attention needs to be given that list. It's clearly not as cut-and-dry as the list makes it out to be and the RFC appears to have been fault at the start having not taken into account administrator alternate accounts and course instructors/volunteers.--v/r - TP 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else working this, I have to go to a meeting, I left off at Another Believer. Everyone above him needs the right still for ep or because it's an alt account of an administrator.--v/r - TP 16:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I was automagically notified of this discussion. Did I forget to do something? Or do something wrongly? Let me know. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@TParis / Callanecc - that list is automatically generated, it's not meant to be used to say "everyone here ought to have it removed". Besides, due to the toolserver being... well... the toolserver, I think it's gonna be running either 9 days or 7 hours behind real time due to replication lag. I'd advise not using it for authoritative information. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, but I have separate concerns about the RFC itself. I'm concerned that it didn't take into account EP and administrator alts.--v/r - TP 01:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Retrolord's user and talk pages

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

---

I am not in the slightest bit concerned about being one of the named users, but in deference to being possibly WP:INVOLVED I am making this request here. I am asking for the removal of the section at User:Retrolord#Royal Decrees and the bold face statement in caps at the top of User talk:Retrolord. This immature nonsense makes a mockery of Wikipedia for any one who happens on those pages. I'm not sure if this is covered by WP:POLEMIC or WP:Userpage or not, but I think it has to go if we are to maintain a serious profile for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would know anything about serious. I've been told I'm a clown. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• I've removed them and left him a comment requesting he not restore them. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin help required

I'm not sure if I've posted this in the right place (probably not), but I was hoping for some admin assistance please on a technical issue that has been raised at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Spelling in quotations. All the Eurovision articles are written using British English, and we currently have implemented the template {{British English}} on all of the article talk pages. However, we have since found out that we may also use {{British English|form=editnotice}} on the article's edit notices - but we've hit a technical glitch; to achieve this action requires an administrator. Is there anyone with a spare moment or two that would be willing to assist us with this task? Thank you very much in advance, as this help is much appreciated. Wesley ☮ Mouse 06:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice please.

I left an enquiry here with an administrator. As can be seen, the administrator concerned, User:Georgewilliamherbert, undertook to review the issue on May 23rd. But since then I have heard nothing from him, although (as can be seen) I have made a couple of enquiries on his talk page. Can someone advise me please on procedure in this situation? I still wish my enquiry to be addressed, as the editor who is its subject is still (in my opinion) stirring up related problems elsewhere. Should I, for example, place the situation on AN/I?Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, once you brought it here, you'll need to advise both Andy and George ... because posting it here is the equivalent to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, apologies for not appreciating the etiquette, I have never listed anything here myself before. I will therefore shortly list the whole shebang properly on ANI and advise both formally.--Smerus (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Smerus (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

New proposal for admins

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.

---

Many recent incidents, not just the two concerning me vis a vis Jmh649 and Bwilkins (they have been notified), have me quite concerned about standards of admin behavior. Those two admin both blocked me within the last two weeks and the blocks were unanimously overturned. Why do they feel it's okay to make such blocks?--because they know nothing will happen to them. The stigma of blocks cannot be erased. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bwilkins_block_of_PumpkinSky. How Bwilkins can think he was doing me a favor when he edit warred, protected the same page, and then blocked me is mind boggling. Look at comments by others in the thread. Essentially they say he violated every possible rule in this situation. And what are the repurcussions to me? NOTHING. Such incidents are getting more and more common. I'll let the other victims speak for themselves.

And don't tell me you know how us non admins feel unless you have been on the receiving end of such actions. And don't tell me admins are just users with some bits--we all now that's hogwash and there are special rules for admins. And people wonder why participation in wiki has been nosediving for 6 years.

So, to raise the standards of behavior of admins and make them think before they act, I have a new proposal:

• "Any admin who blocks someone and said block is overturned as being unwarranted shall be blocked themselves for the same amount of time."

It's high time admins got a taste of their own medicine around here and acted like admins should be acting. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would oppose that because it would be trivial for me to game that on IRC to get any admin blocked, and I'm sure it would be just as easy for anyone else to game. This is the wrong solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose That looks to me like the very definition of a punitive block. Aside from giving the admin "a taste of their own medicine", what possible benefit is derived for Wikipedia from this proposal? Not to mention the obvious fact that this would be hugely open to abuse. I realise that you're pissed off, PumpkinSky, but this strikes me as an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to your recent block; it's contrary to the blocking policy and contrary to basic common sense. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well, I know that I always think before I act. My post on ANI this morning, significantly after the well was poisoned by overnight discussion, shows that my thought processes were extremely clear and correct - and although some apologies for the thoroughly non-AGF responses by my fellow-editors should be forthcoming, they never will - and that's fine with me. There's no consensus that the block was unwarranted, and penalizing anyone for doing what they believe is protecting the project will lead to a) fewer admins, b) fewer admins willing to make difficult blocks (which this one was not, by the way), and therefore c) more damage to the project in the long run. Making ridiculous proposals when a) you're already pissed about ArbComm and b) your pride is hurt really does not help the project - this "proposal" was poorly thought out and was more reactionary than anything (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You introduced the term "poisoned" into this discussion. I don't support the proposal because I think we need fewer blocks, not more, but your reaction seems to invite something like this. Like many others, I don't share your belief that your block protected the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• So of course an admin who removes his own bad block before he can be hauled off to ANI or ArbCom, while recording a false unblock notice that remains on the editor's record, would be exempt because his block wasn't technically overturned .... bzzzzzzzt. A good strategy, and one that can be gamed with your suggestion. It's the internet; get over it already (and I disagree with the way you have framed the Bwilkins' block anyway). You got an unblock message in your log from someone uninvolved; quit whining already, especially when you sit by silently when what you perceive as a bad block happens to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, this is not the place to make a proposal of this nature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the problem of WP:INVOLVED admins is being too quickly brushed aside on these boards, but the solution proposed by Pumpkin (tit-for-tat bad blocks) is silly. Arbcom once proposed a so-called administrative supervision (of admins), but I see no evidence it was ever used. There seems to be no practical, intermediate solution between doing nothing and desysopping by Arbcom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) x 2 This is the third time that this has happened to PumpkinSky. Editors will remember the notorious block of PumpkinSky by Moni3, two hours after she called him an "idiot" and a "dingus" (similar to conduct for which Hawkeye7 was desysopped). While I'm not certain that blocking in response is the answer, I think there is becoming an issue here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• PumpkinSky is upset, I get that and I understand it. If I am to be fair, I have to say that what I saw was a block that was done in good faith, but with too low a threshold. Bad cases make for bad law, etc. etc. I recommend closing this at the earliest reasonable time. What we need is admin to address their fellow admin who "mess up" and this has been happening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's happening too much. You know what we went through yesterday to retain an editor, who while he may have been justly blocked, blew up as the result of gross admin baiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And I've injected myself in every one of these situations and others you may not be aware of, and in ways that aren't always published online. They aren't being ignored. That doesn't mean we can paint every situation with the same brush. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bwilkins' response shows he has zero understanding of the error of his ways. This proves that there are serious issues with today's admins corps. This may not be the best idea, but something needs to be done. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Facepalm, and strong oppose One of the most POINTy proposals in the history of Wikipedia, and an absolutely crazy one at that. Besides, given the way it is worded, this scenario could easily arise: Admin X blocks a sockmaster indefinitely. Said sockmaster stops socking, accepts the standard offer 6 months later, and is unblocked. Admin X, who was acting completely within policy, is now blocked indefinitely by Admin Y. Admin Z realizes this is stupid, and unblocks Admin X, and then has to block Admin Y in the process. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• What a complete waste of time this discussion is. Admins, Checkusers (and Arbs too for that matter) have been ignoring all rules and hindering ordinary writing editors for as long as Wikipedia has been invented. Nothing is going to change because most of those who put themselves up for these lofty positions are little more than tin gods with a frustrated lust for power in real life, Wikipedia provides them with the powers and platforms which real life so very wisely denies them. Only Arbs and Admins can change this situation, and they are not going to admit their all too apparent inadequacies by changing anything. Accept that, and Wikipedia becomes a lot easier.  Giano  12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost totally agree Giano, but felt compelled to bring this up, maybe just one admin will change for the better, yes that's a naive thought but eh. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If you think anything that happens on Wikipedia is going to change the behavior of any "lusting for power in real life" admin, playing out their miserable frustrations by pounding on a keyboard, and then polishing their new brass buckles for their buddies after a high profile block, then you have failed to understand Giano's message. By the way, have you read WP:FLEAS lately? Or perhaps your own posts about "Karma" coming back 'round at 'ya? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Should Admin be blocked if they continually make bad blocks? Sure. But the wording of this proposal is ludicrous. Why would they be penalized the exact amount they were blocking someone else for? That could potentially be very disproportionate to the bad block they have done. I'm sorry if you were wrongfully blocked (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of your situation), but you need to cool off and think this out a little further. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

[ec](Forgive me I already had this typed out before it was closed, and I think it is relevant) Pumpkin Sky, a few months back, an IP was in dispute with BWilkins regarding his treatment of IPs and was dragging BWilkins to the dramaboards 2-3 times a day for a few days. I suggested to that IP that if they were to open and RFC/U on BWilkins that I would contribute my unpleasant experience with BWilkins. This would show a pattern, and I believe a few other instances would be brought up by other users, too. This thread will not result in anything, so as I suggested to the IP back then, please start an RFC/U if this issue continues to bother you enough, and I will throw in my 2 cents there. Rgrds. --64.85.217.10 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Infobox World Heritage Site TfD tag

An admin is needed, please, to add a TfD tag to the protected {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}; please see details at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Salix (talk): 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow

Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

There's a sizeable backlog at WP:RFPP. I'm going to start wading through the requests now, however if a couple other admins would like to pop by as well that would be über-helpful. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

There is a backlog at WP:RM that takes up nearly half the page and extends more than a month back. It's clear from the talk page that there are a few non-admins who are trying to help close and perform non-controversial moves that lead to redlinks, but administrative powers are needed to address the growing number of moves leading to bluelinks (moves over a redirect) that non-admins can't perform. Any help would be much appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

{{db-move}} can be used by non-admins. But I'm not sure why anyone would want to close those things, admin or not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Nathan. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just non-admin closed a handful I found to be pretty obvious Calidum Sistere 04:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for your help too, Calidum. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just any FYI there are 75 move discussions that are baa logged currently. Calidum Sistere 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Aaaand... it's gone. -- tariqabjotu 17:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting talk at talk pages, I need protection against WP:Harass

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

---

Hi, I want to ask if the deletion [61] of my talk at this talkpage [62] is allowed? Because I was pointing out to something that seems to happen a lot, I noticed WP:Canvas.

Some months ago I had a discussion with Alexikoua on the [63] and there after some day Athenean became involved and supported him[64], ultimately I was blocked by an admin because they accused me of non neutral(!) editing.

Yesterday I was randomly reading the talkpage of Talk:Janina Vilayet when I noticed that there had been a discussion in 2011 and exactly the same users were supporting each other against another user. I do not know if this happened on other talkpages, probably it did. But these two users are not unrelated to each other, it seems they work together to influence discussions. So when I noticed this at that talkpage I wrote this as response [65] and immediately (because they control my edits)Athenean deleted my content, while Alexikoua threatened me with block [66]

I also need help because Alexikoua is constantly WP:HARASS me, he is watching my edits and complaining to other users without notifying me. [67] [68], [69]. They threaten me on my talkpage with blocking, I tried to talk [70] with them but they seem to have a very personal dislike since several months. The reason is because I think I created one article (based on reliable sources but which I never could finish due to their opposition) Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres A Greek army massacre of Turks, but on the other hand Alexikoua himself is an active creator/contributor to (Turks massacring Greeks articles).[71][72] [73]. Athenean accuses me that I have an axe to grind with Greek people because I created that massacre. [74].

Thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait. You drop in on a two-years-old talkpage discussion you never had anything to do with, add a negative comment about two other contributors to it for no other reason than that they have been in a conflict with you on an entirely different article, and then you complain that they are harassing you? This calls for a boomerang. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, there isn't any trace of wp:harass. The only case in which we can consider something as such is this one [[75]] (sarcastic comments targetting specific users) and no wonder such a unacceptable comment was quickly removed per wp:talk. Alexikoua (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, it was appropriate to remove your comment. Talk pages are only for discussing how to improve the associated article. Your comment did not discuss the article atall and was properly removed. You were not threatened with a block, you were told if you continue you may be blocked for disruptive editing. GB fan 10:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If Wp:canvass and WP:Harass is allowed I rest my case. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing and harassment are not allowed. You going to a conversation you were not involved in and making a comment such as the one you made is harassment and you should stop. As far as canvassing, I do not see where anyone has recruited other editors that are not involved in a conversation to join a conversation. GB fan 11:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So, let's address your questions 1 by 1:

1. Was the deletion of your talkpage comment allowed? YES - it was unrelated to improving the article at hand, and was also inappropriate in tone and substance
2. Are you being harassed? No - it does not appear that anyone is specifically following your edits and trying to force you off the project

Here's a couple of extra ideas for you:

1. Do not accuse others of nationalistic editing without clear proof - you claim they dislike you because of an article you were involved in ... holding old grudges would be childish and unproductive
2. Before accusing of WP:CANVASS and WP:HARASS, you should actually read them in their entirety in order to actually understand them, not just bits and pieces of them

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

After only 1 day, both Athenean and Alexikoua find out my edit on that talkpage, if they were not controlling all my edits all the time, how could they both ever find out my writing on a forgotten talkpage so quickly ? I gave the links to their accusations, I suspected them of canvass, I should not write that on the talkpage but I did that to point out to admins so they could see their joint actions to influence discussions, but as I see nobody is interested in this. Alexikoua is busy trying to block me by influencing other users I gave the links. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

How did they find that edit so quickly the probably have that page watchlisted so it showed up on their list when you edited it. GB fan 11:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

But I know I am guilty, and I am sorry to have pointed out their wp:canvass. So please block me very quickly for indefinite. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't done anything you need to be blocked for at this point. GB fan 11:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) FA topic ban clarification sought

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.

---

Andy is presently under a topic ban [76] which states:

User:Pigsonthewing is banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day.

A discussion has arisen at WP:ANI regarding possible breaches of the topic ban, where Andy has edited the Talk page of a Featured Article and where he has discussed a scheduled Featured Article on a WikiProject's associated Wikipedia Talk page. I believe in the best interests of all concerned, it would be useful to clarify what namespace(s) the topic ban should apply to and whether there should be any exceptions etc. I have no personal opinion on what namespace(s) the topic ban should explicitly state, and am raising this here as a procedural issue only. Thanks all, Nick (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This is now at last the sixth thread on this matter. The previous attempts to extend the clearly expressed coverage from articles to other pages have all been rebuffed, not least by the original closing admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Having been an arb, I can say that rulings that include talk pages explicitly state such. Since that ruling doesn't so state, Andy is free to participate in TFA related talk pages. Now people should stop beating the dead horse and drop the stick. PumpkinSky talk 13:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As you 'can say', you can, then, supply us with instances where this ruling is explicitly evidenced? Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not wikilawyer. Unless his topic ban specifically prevents discussions on article talkpages, then he is specifically allowed. This is SOP so that editors are not fully removed from areas of interest unless it becomes a necessity. PS: can someone remove the template from the section header so that it can archive successfully (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

PS Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Drop the stick. This is SOP, here...if talk pages are included they are specifically mentioned in the motion.PumpkinSky talk 15:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:88.231.61.88

Removing information in articles and insulting in Turkish in comment line.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Eyes please

this was brought to my attention. I had a very quick look at the contribs. I'm thinking there's a WP:CIR issue in the English language sense. I'm not really up for any drama, but I think it's something that should be looked at. I'll drop them a link to this thread now. — Ched :  ?  21:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I just saw another case a couple of days ago of a clueless editor accidentally creating pages in the category namespace using HotCat. Has some editing function changed recently that makes that an easy mistake? Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention it I've seen the same thing. I've deleted that category and informed [77] the user they apparently were attempting to communicate with. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In answer to Looie's query, I have a suspicion that HotCat may have been enabled by default for new accounts since several months ago; this has the effect that when a new editor goes to another editor's talk page in order to communicate with them, they see a "+" symbol at the bottom of the page, in exactly the position where some other websites have a "+" symbol to click on for "add new post", and thus click it in order to add their message. (Although I'm not entirely sure that explains everything going on in this particular case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge is correct. For the past few months a lot of new editors have mistakenly added categories thinking they were using an editing interface. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know when and where it was decided to turn on HotCat by default. That doesn't seem like a real good idea, the category system here is not something a total noob should be diving right into. The fact that several of us have seen this same problem already would tend to support that idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Found it. On the one hand I am relieved that at least there was a discussion but it apparently did not occur to anyone that this was kind of a big decision and should have been listed at WP:CENT at the very least, not just decided by about ten users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Many more than ten users have found it problematic. I brought it up at VPT a while back, and feedback was almost entirely against the measure as implemented. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I think it is time for a proper RFC on the matter. The figure of ten is about how many people seem to have particpated in that discussion, but in fact only four users voiced support for turning it on for all registered users on a permanent basis. This never should have been closed the way it was and it certainly never should have been implemented. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if we can get it turned off for new users it would cut down on this mistaken category creating. --Rschen7754 22:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is open. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed a few blocked editors putting their unblock requests inside category statements too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Swiss town TfD tag

Resolved

 – done -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

An admin is needed, to add a TfD tag to the protected {{Infobox Swiss town}}. The markup needed is:

{{Template for discussion/dated|page=Infobox Swiss town|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 29#Template:Infobox Swiss town|help=off}}

ASAP, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it this easy...

...to avoid accountability for your actions. I would be interested to hear opinions/comments on the following "hypothetical" example:

• a user has had more than one report filed at ANI, by different users, within two weeks
• the user was duly notified on his/her talk page for each report
• during the time each report was active, the user was editing daily on Wikipedia
• the user made no comment on any of the ANI reports
• the first report has already been archived
• the second report has concerns expressed by several users, but no response from the individual in question, after more than five days
• failure to engage in a discussion at ANI is, in this example, an extension of some of the other disruptive behaviors which generated the reports in the first place

Is it really that simple? Can someone engage in behavior which is of concern to other editors on Wikipedia, and then repeatedly choose to ignore ANI discussions without consequence? Disclosure: within the context of the hypothetical, I have neither reported the user to ANI nor am I the user being reported. Taroaldo ✉ 01:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't the right place for a question like this, But I'm at a loss as to where the right place would be, maybe the village pump?. However, I'll nibble. The answer would be no. Persistent non-response to an editor's complaint is not acceptable. Ok, if in the first instance of being reported to ANI, they don't show up but cease the behaviour that they were reported for then there is no issue. If the editor behaviour is raised at ANI again but by numerous editors then there is a case for a preventative block, pending admin investigation. This has happened before and will no doubt happen more in the future. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out a better place to ask this question than here. It isn't really a hypothetical, but if I start citing specifics then there will be a third discussion open, which wouldn't be productive. My main concern is that there doesn't seem to be a practical process in place to deal with this type of situation. Neither of the two reports I cited received any administrator comment — perhaps everyone was waiting for a response from the user. If a user is uncivil/disruptive in their interactions with other editors sufficient to get an ANI report every few weeks but is not so blatant as to attract immediate administrator intervention (i.e. outside of ANI), then that user can seemingly ignore the ANI discussions without consequence (so far as I have observed). Failure to manage this effectively will only serve to frustrate productive editors who may end up leaving the project as many have done before them. Taroaldo ✉ 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is, in fact, an actual issue with their editing, and there is consensus that there needs to be a block, topic-ban, etc. in response to it, then their lack of comment in the AN/I discussion has no bearing on things. They, presumably, read the notice, and chose not to comment in their defense (or otherwise...), then whatever remedy needs to be applied is applied regardless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Taroaldo - It's impossible to comment without knowing the context of what drove you to this question. All we have is your perception. I thought I knew what you were talking about until you said there had been no admin comments and now I'm at a loss. I'll only say this: some ANI reports are frivilous and others arn't structured in a way that makes sense and a third group are disputes that admin's won't touch with a remote controlled robot and a 20 ft pole.--v/r - TP 01:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• The question is meant to be general but it was prompted by a real situation which still has one active report. I didn't feel it would be appropriate to provide diffs for illustrative purposes at AN while a report is still open at ANI. I have provided links on your talk page so you can see the full context. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• The problem, Taroaldo, is that we can't make any definitive statements when you speak in pointed vagueries. Your initial post amounts to "Can we all agree that evil is bad?" If everyone agrees, so what? Unless we know exactly what situation you are talking about, we can't make any statements about whether or not the situation is or is not being dealt with properly. We have no way to even know if your characterization of the situation is accurate unless we can view the entirety of the situation with our own eyes and arrive at our own conclusions. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• If the question cannot be answered without the example on which it was based, then here is the example: Report 1 was archived without result and Report 2 was de-archived on June 27. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 04:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll take a look when I get a few minutes and see what I can figure out. --Jayron32 19:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note the second report has been archived again: Report 2. Taroaldo ✉ 04:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Evidently, we need admins interested in Africana or at least interested in admining in that area. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of administrator Bbb23; concerns of abuse of position and harassment, vindictiveness

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.

---

1st issue

I've had an issue with this admin since what I believe was an abuse of his admin tools and an unjust block by him back in March. Mind you, I've only been blocked once at Wikipedia and it was by this very admin. Back in March of this year, Bb23 blocked me for edit warring, as he stated on the Administrative Noticeboards, but in the same breath pardoned the other user who was edit warring with me as shown here [78] where he lets Canoe know he's not blocking him but merely verbally admonishing him for his edit warring. Here are examples of Canoe's edit warring and even violation of the 3RR, as shown here [79]; Here [80]; here; [81]; here [82]; here [83] and here [84]. Mind you, I was only reverting on basis that the edit in question was a stable edit and the only issue as concluded by uninvolved parties was that the edit in question was too lengthy and should be scaled down, as shown here [85]. It was concluded at the end of that debate on the matter that the edit in question was well sourced but just had issues in terms of undue weight. I was trying to explain this to Canoe, but for whatever reason he was under the impression it was a content dispute despite everything being sourced.

But the central point here is that I was reverted and blocked on basis of edit warring by Bbb23 while he verbally pardoned the other user's edit warring for whatever reason. I don't contest my block but conclude that I will just retire. However, I have been urged by other editors not to retire and that my edits are valuable. So I reluctantly returned.

2nd issue

However, it wouldn't be long before Bbb23 showed up again. On the same article in question in which I do a lot of editing on and sourcing, he made a drastic reversion of stable edits without first discussing on the article's talk page at all. In doing so, the admin incorporated a long series of typos, grammatical errors, misinformation, and other inaccuracies. Here are his long series of reversions on stable edits without first discussing: [86].

So as to avoid an edit war, I don't revert Bbb23's edits but take time out of my busy schedule to correct the many errors, typos, and solecisms he has incorporated, as shown here [87]; [88]; [89]; [90]; [91]; [92]; [93]; [94]; [95]. Despite my spending a great deal of time going to all the trouble of correcting Bbb23's version of the edit as opposed to a full-on revert back to the stable edit (which is what I could have done but was afraid of him abusing his tools again), this isn't good enough for Bbb23. He immediately reverts back to his edit that's littered with typos, random parenthesis in the middle of nowhere, extra periods, a sentence on its own and out place, etc, as shown here: [96] in which he states "Your edits to the article aren't helpful, adding bloat for no purpose." The admin only gives off when I tell him that his reversions qualify as vandalism as he's incorporating typos, solecisms, and other misinformation and is communicating nothing on the talkpage, as shown here [97].

3rd issue

Bbb23 doesn't completely give off however. As opposed to continuing on with that situation, he decides to show up about 3 weeks later in the middle of an Administrative Noticeboard grievance I was having with another user. In the Administrative Noticeboard discussion I'm involved in with another editor, not only does Bbb23 heavily take sides with the other editor I'm in a disputes with, but he brings up the previous editing dispute I had with him in a way that paints a negative picture of myself and follows this up with a long series of personal attacks as shown here [98] where although he does acknowledge that I try to ignore what I feel is harassment from the user in that matter and try to let disputes go, still finds it necessary to label by me as dismissive, manipulative, arrogant, and that I think I'm better than everyone else. As you'll note in the previous diff, he stated that I thought I was better than everyone else and unconstructive because of my statement of "Goodbye" at the end of my Administrative Noticeboard post to communicate that I felt I had stated my piece and wanted to leave the matter up to the admins as opposed to going on and on. Also in the post, he referred to a user's edits that agreed with me as "garbage" but goes on about how I'm uncivil, unconstructive, manipulative, dismissive, and arrogant.

When I defend myself against Bbb23's personal attacks in that Admin Noticeboard discussion, Bbb23 again irrelevantly brings up his previous personal editing matter with me and states that all my edits on that article in question are horrible, as shown here [99].

4th issue

Looks like this might be an ongoing theme because the admin starts with me again today. The admin showed up on an article and reverted me claiming there's an edit war going on and that I need to go to the article's talkpage even though it was hardly an edit war. As shown here [100], I reincorporate my addition into an article claiming that the reason for removing it doesn't stand per a Wikipedia policy that I was even able to provide. Unsurprisingly, the admin involved himself in my issue again, reverting my edit and telling me that I've been rejected and need to go the talk page, as shown here [101] AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Regarding the last, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When multiple editors have indicated that 'trivia' (as you have yourself described it) about a tv show neither featuring George W. Bush nor parodying George W. Bush doesn't belong in our article on George W. Bush, attempting to edit-war it in is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Where is your number two? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - Perhaps you should learn to count before reporting Admin's for doing there job!. -
  →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I be Number 2? Bbb23 helped out there, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the number 2 since this seems to be getting more attention than the clear examples of abuse of administrative position and harassment and rather uncivilly so by Davey. I would recommend crossing your edit out, Davey. As To AndyTheGrump, multiple users?! The edit was removed once for trivia and as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#guidance that's not even allowed. I should note that I worked on this edit with another user and was formerly thanked for the edit by another user. So please stop acting as though a whole bunch of users disagree with my version and I'm in some kind of minority. This is not even about the edit in question, it's about Bbb23's clear abuse and manipulation of his position which is totally unacceptable. Abuse of administrative position needs to be taken seriously. It's why numerous people leave and complain about this website and why, quite frankly, I'm on the verge of retiring with a series of complaints to spread even in the midst of several editors encouraging me to stay for valuable contributions. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The GWB/American Dad material had been added by you previously, and removed, some time ago. You added it again. Collect removed it. You added it again. Bbb23 removed it - though I'd have done the same. And no, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#guidance doesn't overrule policy regarding edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I only reincorporated that edit once or twice so I'm uncertain what you're talking about Andy. Besides that, discussion of the edit should remain on the talkpage. I am here to discuss abuse of adminship by Bbb23.AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Andy. You are not even an admin. Also, please stop incorporating the Diva comment as you did here [102]. It is a personal attack. I've come here with a legitimate grievance with regards to abuse of adminship and harassment that I'd like to be taken seriously. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you had discussed the edit on the talk page after Collect reverted it, per WP:BRD, there would have been nothing to discuss. And stop violating talk page policy by removing contributors comments. AndyTheGrump (talk)

What does Andy not being an admin have to do with anything? --Jayron32 02:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being uncivil IMO, You're complaining about a highly respected admin & yet you can't count to 5 ....

As per User:Taroaldo I sense WP:DIVA. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Apply WP:DIVA. Taroaldo ✉ 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why everyone complains about this site guys. When people come here with legitimate complaints, they are handled flippantly and with bias on basis of past friendships and how much you respect your editor friend. In effect, it clouds judgments and disallows editors from seeing the problematic shortcomings which is particularly an issue with regards to someone like Bbb23 who has admin tools. I encourage you all to look at posted complaints by many people and see that the site's number of users has been lowering each year because of complaints exactly as mine and how they are handled: the posted complaints by many people [103], [104], and [105]. Cut it with the highly respected admin business and attention to your friendships and get out of dodge if that's how you handle complaints and let a logical, unbiased mind handle complaint processes. That exact behavior is what frustrates people all to hell with this website and makes them want to leave and never come back. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note. In contravention of talk page guidelines, AmericanDad86 has repeatedly removed comments in this thread made by other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • He's digging himself a deeper hole, why stop him?--v/r - TP 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling me a "diva" and telling me I can't count is a personal attack and may be removed per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You do objectively show 7 of 8 of the tell-tale diva signs. The lack of an entourage only means you're not a "truly successful" diva. Not an attack, but someone pointing out your room for improvement. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• This project does have some problems which cause people to leave but, in this case, my original recommendation (wherever it is) stands. Taroaldo ✉ 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm taking time out from my busy schedule to point out that AmericanDad left out something fairly important in "1st issue": Bbb let Canoe off the hook for BLP reasons. That "same breath" in which Canoe was let off, AmericanDad was blocked, yes, not just for edit-warring, but also for personal attacks and disruptive editing. In my opinion, this very wordy thread (though actually less verbose than the linked ANEW report, surprisingly) is itself disruptive. These kinds of jeremiads are in fact a reason for editors and admins to leave. AmericanDad might wanna watch for that boomerang. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• The OP is not doing themselves any favours by their actions here. WP:Boomerang is probably coming in to play here. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Retiring

Sigh! Drmies is an admin I've had past negative dealings with here at Wikipedia in which he allowed another user to say "nigger" in a crude fashion and didn't penalize them when I reported it on the Administrative Noticeboards. Rather, he closed the discussion. Another user even came forward and accused him of racism. Anyways, to be honest guys, I knew beforehand that this complaint would be handled poorly even before I made it out and had been preparing for my retirement as soon as I felt the need to make a complaint against an admin because chances were everyone was just going to take the admin's side. It's the leading complaint about Wikipedia in general so I saw it coming. Complaints in general are handled poorly at Wikipedia so to think a complaint against an admin on an administrative noticeboard would be handled with any sort of unbiased logic is just wishful thinking. So thanks for confirming my suspicions as well as the many complaints made about this place.

Do what you will with this complaint but I'm going to go ahead and retire. As suspected, I came here with a legitimate complaint about an admin's harassment and abuse of tools and for no reason at all was greeted with a series of personal attacks and flippancy from the get-go. Even as evidenced by Davey's edit above which he has finally crossed out because he knows it was a personal attack, it is indeed because the admin in question has a collection of friends, at least here at the ANI noticeboards (which only makes sense considering the admin probably spends a lot of time here but it's the only place users can complain). I guess to dare question the mistreatment of users who have large sums of friends is a bad idea here at Wikipedia and their friends take it as an affront. I simply can't be involved in a system that works like this, it is pointless and infuriating.

I'm not into all the politics, biases of friends, editors popping up from eons ago because they're into grudges. As pointed out above, it has long been a shortcoming of this place that many have retired, never come back, and complained over. I find it entirely messed up that trying to complain about one problematic admin or editor simply leads up to gross displays of misconduct from several others, usually as a result of friendly biases or editors with vendettas (i.e. Inedible Hulk as shown in his above diff of a editing conflict we had eons ago).

These problems have long haunted this place and I simply no longer have the time nor the patience for it. With that, I will join the many who have left and spread their grievances with the site about the rest of the Internet in hopes that they will do away with this and/or come up with something better. Thank you. Good luck in your own experiences here the lot of you. But chances are the aforementioned problems will befall all of you at some point down the line if you edit here long enough and the shoe will be on the other foot. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Mr. Zero

Any chance this can be deleted so I can put User:Launchballer/Mr. Zero there?--Launchballer 06:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not title it Mr. Zero (Keith Relf song), or similar? Taroaldo ✉ 07:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You must be joking! Mr. Zero (song) doesn't exist, and so "Keith Relf " (literally) is unnecessary.--Launchballer 08:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's enough justification for Mr. Freeze to retain the redirect. Your article would be better placed at Mr. Zero (song). — Scott • talk 09:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Procedurally speaking, the OP could have just tagged the redirect with {{db-move}}, but that point is moot now, as it has been contested. --64.85.214.47 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A backlog in very old AfDs

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

---

We need a crack group of sysops to close all these very old AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. The oldest is two weeks past the deadline. I've done several already, but there's a whole bunch more. Peace. -- Y not? 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looks much more undercontrol now. I hope I haven't broken the wiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• I tried to help, but I was always two clicks behind Spartaz so I gave up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • hot damn! you're a dynamo, Spartaz! -- Y not? 18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Not sure how good that is as I'm already getting the challenges on my talk page. Its been so long since I closed AFDs I had forgot about that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Ach, don't worry 'bout that. When I do the "Old AFD" sweep it's an unusual day when you don't get that - after all, they're the ones no-one else wanted to close. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • A side effect of closing that causes admins to take an extended vacation from closing discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Linking to Wikipediocracy ArbCom case

(I am posting this here as I believe this issue involves administrators as a group as past iincidents related to this have involved wheel warring, blocking, revision deletion, protections, etc, on a large scale. The purpose of the request is not to debate whether WO is good or evil but to get some clarity on the issue of linking to it from WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC))

It is my belief that the community, the administraive corps, and the oversight team are not able to resolve these issues by themselves. I have therefore just submitted a request to the Arbitration Committee to ask them to get directly involved and provide some clarity on this matter. See WP:RFAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor blanks content

If you notice new users vandalizing articles by randomly deleting content (particularly the references, categories, and templates), please note that a some of this is being caused by bugs in the visual editor. See this for one example. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Reaper, two things...1) VE isn't exactly WMF's stellar new tool and 2) I'm still around. PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that was done by the Visual editor error and not plain olde editor error? It seems that the two unclosed ref tags behaved as they normally do and in trying to fix the problem ended up deleting the contents. The edit summary alone screams "what is happening?" rather than "updating" and "Wait? What? I didn't do this! (undo!)". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Refdesk RFC needs closing

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC has been running for a month and has been stable for two weeks, with only a trickle of recent edits, so it can be closed at any time. I don't expect that this will pose any grave difficulties. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Technical error in 2012–13 Egyptian protests

Something is wrong in the title of this article. And because it is a current event I notify admins here. Please someone take a look at my request for move here.Farhikht (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive dynamic IP users

A user with a dynamic IP (so far 87.161.212.29 (talk), 87.161.215.57 (talk), 87.161.214.138 (talk), 87.146.204.178 (talk) and 87.161.220.204 (talk)) has been making a nuisance of themselves at List of Winx Club episodes, edit warring and threatening other users with blocks. What's the general procedure for dealing with a disruptive editor hopping IPs? — Scott • talk 10:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for the time being, as this seems to be an ongoing problem. A way forward could be a rangeblock, as they are all in the same range; you could start by warning them, if you have not done so already, and report to AIV subsequently. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I should have thought of semi-protection, silly me. Yeah, in the meantime I've been having a look at the rangeblock documentation; I should learn how to do that. I'd already issued a warning to one of the IPs before noticing it was dynamic, but who knows if they'll even see it if I warn them all... it appears to change daily. Anyway thanks for the tip, I'll keep an eye out for further activity. — Scott • talk 11:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I shy away from rangeblocks too, but this might be of help: http://toolserver.org/~chm/blockcalc.php Lectonar (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

URGENT

Can an admin stop/block User:EdwardsBot. I sent out the wrong thing!!!--Dom497 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Soft-blocked for three hours. Will that do? Bencherlite^Talk 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as it won't re-start. (I don't know if the coding of the bot will do that...I'll contact the operator.) Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No it won't. The bot will continue to run while blocked.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So its still delivering....--Dom497 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

yea pretty much but it's not getting anywhere since it's blocked.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never understood why admins are so quick to block the bot and yet nobody ever considers blocking the person who fucked up the delivery. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Because we don't block for honest mistakes. --Jayron32 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:PUNITIVE. The block is necessary to prevent imminent damage by the bot, but not necessary for the initiator, a human who can control his actions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling misdirected talk page posts "imminent damage" is pretty silly. It helps to think of EdwardsBot as equivalent to sending an e-mail. The bot wasn't misbehaving, it was doing exactly as it was instructed. A block certainly wasn't necessary. Think about it this way: while everyone was quick to shout for a block, far fewer were quick to clean up the mess the bot made. It looks like Rschen7754 tried a bit before realizing that rollback wouldn't work and that it was a tedious job to undo each edit.

But sure, throw out some shortcuts to Wikipedia essays explaining to me how blocks work around here. You'll have to forgive any misimpressions I may have about this place, I'm new around here. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have told Dom497 to clean up after himself as well as blocking the bot (which User:EdwardsBot#How do I stop EdwardsBot? does seem to imply is one action that can be taken in such circumstances. If I misunderstood, please accept my apologies. It seemed easier to block the bot once the problem had been noticed (as I noticed from the block log had been done in the past) rather than let the bot get to the end of its run. Again, if you disagree, I apologise. If you'd like such situations handled differently in future, then perhaps some additional wording at the top of the bot's user page would be useful with your suggestions for what should be done when someone gives the wrong instructions to the bot. Bencherlite^Talk 15:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There isn't any good way to stop the bot (much as there isn't any good way to stop an e-mail that's been mis-sent). I can't blame you for blocking the bot, but blocks of the bot (when it's working exactly as it was instructed to) generally leave me annoyed. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, erm, Dom, you still let it deliver 50+ messages before even posting a message here...I think the lesson to be learned is "don't get coffee right after starting a bot task." The good thing about mistakes is that you learn from them :) Theopolisme (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to everyone for what happened.--Dom497 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Block of user spamming

• ndcabilify.pen.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• buyabilifyonlinepupilsize.pen.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• ocdabilify.pen.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• buyabilifyonlineserotonin.pen.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Have blocked User:Acapor123 for a week as they continued adding spam sites despite a warning. Have posted here for review as they were editing a page I had previously made changes to.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Good block. It may not be as obvious on this project, but spamming such as this is probably the single greatest global issue for Wikimedia projects. Some smaller projects can be seriously harmed in a very short time by a couple of spamming accounts. Risker (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur with the good block, but you should have indef'ed the account. It is obvious from their initial edits that they are only here to spam. IMO, any off topic article spamming of common spammed items like this one, should result in immediate indef blocking. For example, I blocked Jeangreen110 (talk · contribs) immediately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm .. I see a lot of stuff added on pen.io (report upcoming).

• pen.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

It's just a blog. For now, I'll just revertlist this on XLinkBot (blogs are anyway discouraged as external links, and sometimes very spam-enabling - see this). I have to see how this is being used (these were the only 7 additions on en.wikipedia, but other wikis seem to have also SPAs adding one blog, and there is another set of subdomains on this site that all have similar names as well).

By the way, I would have opted for indef as well I think, not a lot of good faith seeing edits like this, that is pure linking to sell/promote. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed with blatant violation of NPOV

For several days now, a big argument is going on at the talk page of 2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état. The problem is quite simple.

• Part of the international debate about this event is about whether to call it a coup or not. By calling the article by that name, Wikipedia takes side and presents a particular POV.
• An argument can of course be made for this being a coup (otherwise there would be no discussion) but it is not a universally accepted and used name. Some media outlets use the word coup, many others use other terms. "Coup" is not in common use.
• Almost all countries in the world, including the US and the UK (this is English Wikipedia), have refused to call it a coup.
• The question about whether it's a coup or not has far-reaching implications, particularly for the US as the US would be forced to stop all help to Egypt if it is a coup. Calling it a coup thus serves a particular agenda.

In other words, I see no reason why Wikipedia should take sides and use a title that reflects a particular POV when many neutral options are available. The discussion at the talk page is going in circles right now. It's clear that some favor 'coup' but it's equally clear that many consider it POV and there is no consensus for its use. The talk page and the title are in urgent need of admin participation as the discussion has stalled. Given that the front page of Wikipedia links to this article, the use of a title that takes a certain POV is problematic.Jeppiz (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes we have to pick a title because it's really not possible to pick a neutral name. See Occupation of the Baltic states, for example; the title is distinctly POV because it implies that it wasn't a legal annexation, but unless you pick a title from the opposite POV, e.g. "Annexation of the Baltic states", you have to have a ridiculously long and unhelpful title such as "Process by which the Baltic states began to be administered by the Soviet Union". We really need to let the talk page decide whether it's a coup or not, whether "coup" is neutral, and (if not neutral) if we can pick a neutral name or if we're forced to choose sides. Content disputes shouldn't be decided here at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The intention was not to discuss the title here (though let me point out that several neutral titles have been suggested at the talk page, so there is certainly no need for this title) but rather to suggest that an admin should take a look at the page as the discussion is going nowhere.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Initiate a RM, when it has run ask an admin to gauge the consensus. Easy. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is what I'm doing, isn't it? There is an RM that has run, I'm asking an admin to have a look at it. Glad to hear yuo agree.Jeppiz (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Went to the talk page and saw that after reading your original message; I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were saying that admins needed to come in and force through your preferred title, not simply to come and close a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer. My intention was for an admin to take a fast decision given the relevance (right now) of the article, not to influence what that title should be. Sure, I have strong opinions about that, and I outline them on the talk page, but of course I do not mean that an admin should step in and enforce my preferred title. I do think a neutral title is preferable, but if an admin decides that there is a consensus for "coup d'état", then the admin should of course pick that option.Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Anderson unblock request

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

---

Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in September 2012 by Kudpung, and now he wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of his UTRS, which he has agreed to have copied here:

I've been away from Wikipedia for 3 quarters of a year, I've learned my lesson and there will be no nonsense/sock-puppetry from me like the last time i was blocked for it, i will follow the restrictions on my talk page, and all i'll be doing is making decent contributions, and i will revert vandalism without issue.

Please review this request and determine whether Anderson should be let back. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock if he's telling the truth. Disregard this support if anyone provides solid evidence of recent sockpuppetry or other shenanigans, but if he's being honest, sure, why not. --Jayron32 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I've followed him since his first day here and very familiar with all the other accounts as well. While he has gained some clue on the way, there were a lot of problems with his vandal patrolling and biting or simply miss identifying vandalism. I would feel better if he completely avoided CVUA and vandal patrolling if he comes back, at least for 6 months. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: When Anderson was last active, he did waste the time of a lot of people. In my opinion the only way he could come back is if he agrees to unblock conditions that would keep him away from the areas where he had trouble. To facilitate those negotiations I suggest unlocking his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that is an excellent idea. I have no problem whatsoever allowing a few, say three admin to have the conversation with him, come to a solution and implement it. I think you would be an excellent one of those, and I'm happy to bow out and accept whatever you three (plus Anderson) were to conclude a reasonable set of restrictions would be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

*User:Spartaz has stated that the WP:BASC is now looking into this block and he recommends that we leave it in their hands. That sounds reasonable to me, since they will be able to review the email themselves and decide how serious it is. I suggest that this thread be closed.EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't Spartaz talking about someone else in that comment than whom this thread is about? GB fan 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, mental lapse on my part. That was a different user. I confirm my earlier suggestion that we unlock Anderson's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Talk page access restored: I think it would be a good idea for people to talk to him and, if desired, ask him to agree to certain conditions before unblocking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: My impressions from the last time around were that Anderson was friendly and enthusiastic, but didn't take Wikipedia serious enough, to the point of treating it like a video game...shoot the bad guys (vandals) and try to "level up" (rollbacker, reviewer, etc.). My main issue was that he often got false positives while reverting vandalism, hitting good faith IP editors with high level vandal templates. Then there was the clerking of WP:PERM, and finally the sock-puppetry trying to avoid the restrictions. On the good side, the ability to wait several months with no problems/socking shows an increase in maturity in my mind.

  The ideal solution, in my mind, would be something that provided Anderson with an outlet for his passion, but protected Wikipedia from unintentional collateral damage. If I remember correctly, in prior discussions we had been talking about technical ways of disabling automatic editing (including Twinkle) but I don't remember if that is possible or not. If it is, I do recommend that. I'd also suggest a ban on templating editors until he demonstrates that he can tell the difference between good faith edits and vandalism. Anyway, that's my recommendation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional unblock. There's no denying that this, of course, is another block evasion especially where he was clearly asked to make any further unblock requests through BASC. However, he has been patient for 9 months, and not wishing to stifle the return of a young editor who was editing in good faith but simply, and clearly, failed to understand the rules, I'm prepared to give him another chance. Conditions as far as I'm concern would echo the suggestions that his return would be subject to strict limitations: mainspace content work only, no page patrolling, no tagging of articles, no warning other users, no involvement in meta areas, no vandal reverts, no applications for additional user rights, and no use of Twinkle, until he has demonstrated that he understands the reasons for his block. Preferably for a couple of months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Anderson agrees entirely with these restrictions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully support Kudpung's restrictions here. It can be revisited at WP:AN in 6 months if Anderson wants to, but it is the best chance for him to participate and adapt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll go along with 6 months. Anderson seems to be amenable to accept any restrictions that will allow him to get back to editing, and that help him understand that our prime objective is to build an encyclopedia and not police the pages and people that make it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I vaguely remember this case, thanks for pointing me here Kudpung. I'm happy that he should have another chance, and I agree that he should only be let back on a short leash (which we can loosen as time goes by) - however I'm concerned by some of the conditions. For one thing, content work is difficult for many people and I believe that Anderson may well get into much more trouble if he cannot work in an area where he feels able. As such, I'd drop the "only mainspace content work" which could be used for badgering - replace it with a "recommendation to focus on mainspace content work", and I'd also drop the "no vandal reverts". The rest of Kudpung's suggestions sound reasonable. I'd also expect Anderson to be given an indefinite one account limitation. Worm^TT(talk) 12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Content work might be "difficult" but that is why we are here. Everything else that you and I do is secondary to that. As User:Scott Delaney, he did more content work until he decided to become a vandal fighter, which cause a lot of bitten editors to get upset. If he can't contribute to articles in an acceptable manner, then his return shouldn't happen at all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Dennis, you've been spending too long around Wikipedia's self declared content creators. I'm not referring to admin work, but there's a lot of things that Anderson can do that doesn't fit under mainspace content work. Of the top of my head, file work, article assessment, categorisation, wikification, fixing syntax errors, adding co-ordinates, infobox conversion... I'm sure there's many more. They're gnoming roles which are essential to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, which has nothing to do with administration and yet don't fit under "only mainspace content work". Those who write or copyedit articles aren't the only ones who contributing positively to the encyclopedia, and I want to make it clear that if an editor cannot contribute in one particular way, they can contribute in another. Then there's the slightly closer to admin work stuff, like !voting in deletions - an areas sorely underpopulated by the community. Again, I wouldn't have an issue with him working there. As far as I recall, his anti-vandalism work was unproblematic, why restrict him there? Simply, we don't want to box him into a small area where he cannot be productive. Worm^TT(talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

article assessment, categorisation, wikification, fixing syntax errors, adding co-ordinates, infobox conversion - ironically, these are the things that I mentally included in mainspace work, I just didn't make myself clear. However, I think he should be kept clear from meta areas especially such as AfD until he has been around to learn enough about policies and guidelines. After all, this is an exceptional unblock request, and we are being exceptional in even considering letting him back after such a troubled history. I would be monitoring his edits (as I'm sure Dennis would be too), and as soon as he shows promise after 6 months, we would not hesitate to let him off the leash. I'm not sure about AfD because he's never voted there, but to do so also needs a knowledge of notability and other deletions guidelines that he is most probably not sufficiently versed in. There's is also the concern that given one meta area where he may work may encourage him to make a beeline for it and do little else, and because this is an exceptional unblock, I wouldn't hesitate to reblock if he messes up. No one has mentioned adoption here (yet), but Anderson didn't seriously pursue the last attempt at mentoring. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you and I are of one mind. I'd support your suggestions if they could be written in a way that will mean they are not there as a tool for bludgeoning by someone who takes a dislike to his work. Worm^TT(talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We would also take care (in the nicest possible way, of course) of any instances where people might unduly harass or warn him for any errors he does make. Seems we have a consensus, so I'll try to draft a final set of conditions and post it here later today for approval. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Absolutely vital that the editor be restricted to one account, and one account only. Period. Full stop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

draft for approval or discussion

Hi Anderson. Following the discussion at WP/AN concerning your unblock request, the community is prepared to give you another chance provided you firmly agree to abide by these conditions for 6 months, after which we will look at your edits again with a view to lifting all or some of the restrictions.

• You may only edit in article space. This includes adding correctly sourced 'new' content, article assessment, categorisation, wikification, fixing syntax errors, adding co-ordinates, infobox conversion. You may also take part in discussions on article talk pages of the articles you have edited. You may not however, revert any content without first discussing it on the article talk page or with the editor concerned.

To be absolutely clear, this means:

• You may not warn, or place warning templates on the talk pages of other editors. If you feel a warning is necessary, please report the instance to an administrator. You should take care however, that you do not do this too often.
• You may not patrol new pages.
• You may not patrol for vandalism or revert any vandalism.
• You may not place maintenance tags on articles. If you feel a tag is necessary, please report the instance to an experienced editor in good standing.
• You may not take part in any meta areas; by this we mean any 'management' areas such as, for example (but not only), WP:PERM, WP:AfD etc. This may sound restrictive, but remember that we do not feel that you have enough knowledge to do this for the time being.
• You must avoid being encouraged to use editors' (or your own) talk pages for social banter, or an indiscriminate use of WikiLove or barnstars.
• Finally, you may not, under any circumstances, create any other user accounts or edit without logging in.

Do bear in mind however that these conditions are not negotiable and that any breaches of these conditions may lead to you being blocked again. You may also wish to consider joining an adoption programme again, but if you do, you must follow it through in a timely manner. If you feel that you are being unduly warned or harassed by other users, including admins, who are not familiar with these unblock conditions, rather than react, please ask for advice from an admin, such as Worm, Dennis, GB fan, EdJohnston, Jayron32, King of hearts, or Kudpung, who is familiar with your case, and we will take it from there. If there is anything you do not understand in these conditions, please do not hesitate to ask Kudpung, Dennis, or Worm for a further explanation.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Kudpung, This seems good overall in my opinion. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details, like being restricted to "article space" but being able to contact other editors, or not taking part in meta areas, but being able to report things to administrators. Is this basically just a restriction from the WP: namespace? I'm 100% on board with the ban on templating/warning editors and patrolling, but ambivalent about the ban on reverting vandalism. The rest is good by me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think "may only edit in article space" may be an over-generalization; they ought to be allowed to conduct legitimate business on others' user talk pages. Anyways, I would support a ban on vandalism reversion for now, as part of the reason for his original block was due to his failure to distinguish between good-faith edits and vandalism, but that can be the first thing to be reviewed (maybe in 3 months or so). No WP-space (unless the discussion directly concerns him) is also a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been discussed elsewhere, he would also be allowed to participate in GA/FA/DYK or other areas that are about building or improving articles. I think that the maintenance areas (mainly, vandal fighting) are the points of concern, but that would also mean no helping at RFPP, UAA or other admin/maintenance areas. He was never a drama seeker he just had some significant issues with reverts and vandalism. All of this is temporary of course, and everyone is willing to review reducing these over time. And of course, if he is named as a party in an action, he can participate. The goal here isn't to punish him, it is to make it easier for him to succeed in being productive by providing clearly defined temporary rules. Several of us know him and will work with him. We don't want him blocked and will try to keep him unblocked, but it is ultimately up to him. I know he can do this or I wouldn't be supporting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgot about that, content-related WP-space can be allowed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't really want to prolong this any longer, as Anderson is eager to get started again. I think the general consensus is that we can go ahead with the draft conditions I proposed, so if there are no clear objections in the next 24 hours, I'll post them to his talk page. He must understand that these condits are not negotiable, and that any relaxation is at the discretion of the admins reviewing his case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Conditions posted to Anderson's talk page, with some very minor improvements as suggested, for clarity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Celeste6566 unblock request

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

---

Celeste6566 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in October 2011 by DragonflySixtyseven, and now he wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of his UTRS, which he has agreed to have copied here:

I did some bad edits and behaved severely inappropriately back in 2011. Some examples include threatening to hit an administrator if he/she wouldn't unblock me, threatening to take down the Wikipedia website, and writing fictional articles about my made-up musical career. However, I know a lot better now, and I highly promise not to do anything like that anymore, OK?

Please review this request and determine whether Celeste6566 should be let back. I have also restored his talk page access for this request, so you may contact him directly. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that the administrator who unblocks Celeste566 -- if any such administrator can be found -- stalk Celeste's edits for the next several months. A year, preferably. DS (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This was clearly a very young editor at the time, and young editors can mature greatly in two years. I think it is appropriate to AGF in cases like this. (Note that "Celeste" is most commonly a female name.) Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Although I would have preferred they go through WP:BASC, as I quite clearly indicated on their talk page when revoking it, (did we evan have UTRS back then?) two years without any evidence of socking or anything is more than enough time and I'm inclined to say WP:ROPE on this one. see below. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  My rationale for allowing the standard offer was because of the relative shortness of their block log and the lack of anything Arbcom-related. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: The following accounts are  technically indistinguishable from Celeste6566 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki):

• Emily445 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikilover144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked them and recorded it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Celeste6566/Archive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• An appeal to BASC was made in March 2013 and was declined. Upon review of the request at UTRS I also have concerns that Celeste6566 continues to use multiple accounts to evade their block as recently as June 30th (in accordance with T. Canens results above). I would be very hesitant in allowing an unblock under these circumstances.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well never mind then, they had the rope, and they hung themselves with it. Oppose unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, come back again in 6 months to a year when you haven't socked in the meantime. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, the immaturity that was previously possessed is still obvious. Try again later. Dusti^*poke* 23:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The socking is a deal breaker.--v/r - TP 00:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock The immaturity and behavioural concerns appear to be ongoing. Let the indef continue. Taroaldo ✉ 00:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I was had ... until the socking. Reset the clock for 6 fresh new months (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

blocking help please

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.

---

Can I have the Users "Amaury" and "117Avenue" for mass re-editing and bots or sock puppetry? I'm not too good at admin stuff, is this the correct place to post? Fatum81 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but this user is also BLANK-ing my speeches about Canada Political Affairs of current amendments. Please block "Hwy43" I mean where is there a Highway 43 in Ontario, Canada? He doesn't seem to be a valid citizen of Alberta, Canada and does not have a passport here. I can look it up but he doesn't have a tax return and owes money to the government for past wages un-declared. Fatum81 (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you quickly either retract this complaint or try to reword it into something that makes sense, and mind those boomerangs that are flying about here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, what can I say, apparently the boomerang was faster. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This complaint is frivolous and I blocked Fatum81 (talk · contribs) and his IP 24.141.16.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for harassment of the named editors. Beyond incompressible communications he is also edit warring on user talk pages. Hopefully 24 hours will be enough of a cool-down. He has made an unblock request—maybe someone can understand what he is saying, I can't. NrDg 07:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

He removed his unblock request and is now making WP:legal threats [106]. I can't really take this too seriously given his communication skills but others may wish to evaluate this. NrDg 07:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Indef, talkpage access blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

 – Reading through his history, Fatum81 was apparently under the impression that editors were required to be Canadian citizens to edit topics about Canada. And that several editors were mirroring bots.

Auric talk 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Fatum81 sent me an email yesterday with the subject "Hello, Future Canadian" and the text

Are you a real person? Please provide your name, address, and your local MP/MPP will contact you shortly. Thank you. Jeremy

Not sure what this means.--Auric talk 18:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What it means is that their email access needs to be yanked, which I can see Fut.Perf. has now done.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is being targeted by a bot

It started last week, but has exploded now. Someone, presumably in Poland, given the number of Polish names, is flooding Wikipedia with requests for redlinks or redirect pages. The redlinks contain errors that are too systematic for them to have originated in multiple locations (note, for instance, the persistent use of commas). Given how quickly this has escalated, it would be wise to tackle this now before it reaches DDoS levels. Serendi^podous 09:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DDoS'ing Wikipedia would be very hard. I believe someone once tried it on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy – gave it millions of views an hour – and no one even noticed until it came up in a listing of the most viewed pages. On the other hand, if there's a poorly set-up bot out there, my understanding is that the sysadmins normally like to deal with them, especially since it can be a real issue if they start accessing the dynamically generated pages (e.g. Special:RecentChanges). However, that's a sysadmin issue, not an administrator one. (Only sysadmins can add bots to robots.txt.) I'm not sure if there's a noticeboard for that on MediaWiki.org or Wikitech or something, but you can always drop by #wikimedia-tech ^connect or #wikimedia-operations ^connect. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This may be a blackhat SEO strategy because Wikipedia continues to publish those invasive pageview counts at stats.grok.se and various people use the counts for different purposes good and evil. I've been meaning to write up something about that. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Really bad deletion summary...

I've just started a disambiguation page at Justin Carter, so it doesn't show up any more, but I should note that as seen at [107], any user who clicked the former redlink would have been presented with some juvenile commentary from a former deleted revision of the page, which mentions specific individuals at a high school. (This has been visible for seven years before this and there's now a significant news story about the name) The admin who did it hasn't been active since 2006, but it looks like leaving the beginning of the page in the edit summary was standard practice. [108] Maybe some watchdogs should look back and see if more edit summaries requoted problematic content like this and are still visible when clicking the redlink, and revdel them or something? Wnt (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this issue; I have just revdeleted the edit summary. I honestly don't have the time to check if there are other similar cases, but if someone else wanted to take a look, he'd have my gratitude. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some others, like [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] (for the reason for this see [123]) [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] and probably lots more in that sysop's log alone. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up done, thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:UAA

You admins have a backlog here. Mindy Dirt (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sports Trades

For potential sports trades should we wait until the deal is completed until we edit pages involved or should we go by the "sources". Yougo1000 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How is this an administrator issue? If there's a specific trade that you're trying to work out, discuss it on the talk page(s) of the involved players. Solving this problem involves having a discussion with others, and admins don't need to be involved at all. --Jayron32 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous DPL bot and WhatLinksHere

Several dab pages that I have created or worked on recently have been marked as having large numbers of incoming links by User:DPL bot. And Special:WhatLinksHere seems to agree with the bot. However manual examination of the linking pages shows no such link, and the Dab Solver tool cannot find anything to fix either.

The issue seems to relate to the fact that the pages transclude a template that used to link to the dab page, but has since been corrected to link to the correctly disambiguated target. I've noticed in the past that it sometimes takes Special:WhatLinksHere a little while to catch up in these circumstance, but these are cases where the template was last edited several days ago. Something is clearly broken somewhere, and I suspect that it is not the bot itself. Hence my report here.

I've informed the bot owner through User talk:DPL bot, and more details (examples) can be found there. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Its a matter of job queue lag your edit just took a while to propagate. Werieth (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto with the other page Werieth (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Job queue for details of what the job queue is. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that my edit was over 3 days ago now, and it hasn't yet propagated. Doesn't that suggest that this is more than just lag?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I went ahead and forcelinkupdate'ed all relevant pages and things look fixed. There have been cases where it can take a month for all changes to propagate (extremely rare), most are within a week. Werieth (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see it has come through now. Given that delay, I do wonder about the wisdom of things like User:DPL bot and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig (I've just noticed my dab pages have popped up there too), as they seem to be making very definative judgements based on quicksand. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

FFD backlog

There is a huge backlog at WP:FFD, stretching back to mid April. Could admin(s) deal with these? Also WP:PUF has a backlog but nowhere as dense. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Eric Corbett blocked

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

---

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

---

Start

I have blocked User:Eric Corbett for a month for multiple clear personal attacks (and having a history of such). Explanation at [129]. I know that blocks of Malleus / Corbett have been contentious in the past, so I bring it here for review. Fram (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Though Doc9871's behavior was certainly suboptimal, and I will be advising him of this on his talk page. --Rschen7754 09:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  I have no interest in seeking this editor's block, I did not pursue this block in any way, and my "behavior" constituted talking to Eric as I always have. Doc talk 10:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  I don't care what you and Eric say on your talk pages. My problem is with his behaviour on the project page. People are trying to work, and they should be able to do that in a non-toxic environment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. As the person who left the warning last night I would have blocked myself for the continued incivility that followed it had I been awake. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• EC was way out of line - necessary block. Sædon^talk 10:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Corbett's behavior on the VisualEditor talk page is absolutely unacceptable. — Scott • talk 10:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• A cromulent block, given the history, though I can already hear the accusations of bad faith getting typed up (as it's a national holiday for most regular contributors). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No accusation of bad faith trumps the completely unnecessary and disrespectful personal attack here. Sædon^talk 10:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else that doesn't know what "cromulent" means, it apparently means fine/acceptable.--Rockfang (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually,"cromulent" assumes knowledge of its ironic Simpsons origins -- in other words, it implies the opposite of "fine/acceptable". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, personal attacks have no place and no editor is too 'important' for a block. Also it should be "arsehole", not "asshole" GiantSnowman 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless he is American, in which case I think it is asshole. Arsehole is the way we say it in Ireland and the UK. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support the block; and I'm rather concerned by how frequent and severe these comments are. Civility issues like this do drive editors away, the community should not stand idle when numerous warnings fail to correct or stem this behavior. If it was a one-off, perhaps, but enough is enough. This is not a case of a "bad-day" either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support There's nobody who can defend the continued incivility, especially this current round of WP:NPA (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I normally find myself in opposition to blocks for incivility, as incivility is extremely subjective and the blocks are typically more problematic than anything else. I'm willing to let the occasional issue slide, as everyone can lose their temper from time to time, and to not expect that is to not live in the real world. However, this is not one of those cases. Most of the recent subsections on his talk page include personal attacks from him. Consequently, although I find myself in general opposition to blocks of this nature, I also find myself unable to oppose this specific block. As a side note, I thank Fram for having the foresight to bring this block here immediately for review. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• A block may be reasonable, but the length is excessive. If Eric had commented on "sanctimonious bullocks" instead of the person, he would have not violated WP:NPA. His comment was out of character, and likely due to the dysfunction of WMF and its "Visual Editor". Perhaps 48 hours would be more reasonable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  While our engineers are very good, behavioural modification is unfortunately beyond them - unless the VisualEditor has achieved sentience, of course, in which case we're all somewhat screwed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  I've got a bad feeling about this... Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. When all but one of your diffs about personal attacks involves that person responding to a person warning or reprimanding them for that singular personal attack, and it is one as absurdly trivial as calling someone an "asshole" then you are giving da rulz higher priority over the encyclopedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Reasonable block, well supported. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Apparently, "well supported" needs elaboration because below the lawyerly arguements in discussing removing this comment: [130], suggest that the users history at Arbcom was not mentioned in this discussion, however, that is what is, in part, meant by "well supported" because part of the explicit rationale for the block and its length is the user's history, including at Arbcom. So, now the finding at Arbcom [131] is explicitly mentioned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I can't tolerate personal attacks but I think one month is bit too much, I personally would do two weeks, I'm also pointing out that Visual Editor has been improving at a good rate, I personally am impressed by the buggy interface last month, compared to what we have now. Well done! Prabash.Akmeemana 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oh my. Good block. We do really need to behead this incivility issue. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Revisiting my original comment: I do agree that one month is inadequate, but I also agree that no matter how much content you write, you need to be sanctioned for your actions. I have written, and still write, featured content among other things I do on this website. But that doesn't make me unblockable; at all. That should make me set the example for new users. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Sheesh. Thanks a lot to the snarker on that VisualEditor Feedback page, to the DJ admin who felt the need to template a regular, to the admins in general who can't even stand being called "asshole", to the various sanctimonious baiters and taunters who sit around and wait to jump on Eric's talk page to stir the pot a little bit, et cetera. All this passive-aggressive shit is allowed, but "asshole" is not. "Oh do you have diffs for that?" No, read the guy's talk page, idiot. Anyone can have a go at him--has anyone been blocked for baiting/taunting/provoking? Supporters, thanks a lot. I look forward to your help at the FA review for The Coral Island. In case you don't know, the F stands for Featured. We use it for high-quality articles, of the kind that Eric churns out regular like clockwork. Or used to. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • F also stands for "fallacy", as in the litany of oft-dispelled tropes you're prone to rattle off when defending Malleus for something that literally anyone else would have been sanctioned for for the Nth time. For what it's worth, I've directly threatened Doc with a block for such Bugs-esque baiting in the past, but this was imminently blockable prior to his imposition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't, though I will give you props for your attempt at fancy rhetorical footwork. "Oft-dispelled tropes" is, of course, nonsense--these are not tropes. Moreover, they haven't yet been dispelled. I'm happy that you keep such close track of me, though, and I am perfectly content to stand in Eric's corner, even if there's precious little I can do. A month-long block for a couple of "asshole"s, some of which baited, yeah, that's justice, Thumperward. Literally, I suppose. So many comments by too many people who wouldn't know what an FA or a GA was if it bit them on the ass. How, blocking administrator and supporters, is this block preventing disruption? How is it not provoking disruption? and how is it supporting the development of content? Never mind. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Misdirection, veiled anonymous aspersions, and a heap of disingenuousness. You're not going to point at these supposed non-contributors (because this would paint you into a corner the next time this comes up); at least on this occasion you haven't the brass neck to unilaterally unblock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. We have minimum standards for dealing with each other. If those aren't adhered to, you shouldn't be editing, no matter who you are or what else you have accomplished. --Conti|✉ 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of civility blocks myself. In this case I do understand the block although I hope the duration can be revisited. Eric has been doing better about not pushing it too far, although he did fall off the wagon a bit here. His FA work doesn't excuse going into the rant, but I would remind people that his signal to noise ratio is still quite good (better than most people's actually), even if it wasn't for a couple of hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: kafkaesque. - What is that block going to achieve? Feel like being "in charge" a little bit? Get rid of quality content? Educate someone to use more sophisticated language for people who may not understand it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A wiki where you can talk to a user without being called an asshole? --Conti|✉ 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • With any luck it'll mean that we don't lose any more project members who ask a polite question in complete innocence and get This in response. (And yes, for fanboys present and fanboys yet to arrive: there's not a single naughty word in that reply, so by the twisted logic applied solely to Malleus Fatuorum blocking for such a thing is a rank injustice directly comparable to Guantanamo Bay, or something.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Isn't "fanboy" a personal attack? The kind of language unbecoming of an administrator? Isn't it at least an assholish kind of remark that is intended to impugn the opponent from the get-go? You're not setting yourself up as a paragon of virtue here, Thumperward. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Only when one is being flagrantly dishonest. Not uncommon when it comes to the whataboutery of Malleus's core supporters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the above question can be answered, stress on "achieve", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Totally ridiculous block: Eric Corbett is poked on his talk page, gets predictably angry and this encourages the poker plus a few mates come back to poke some more. Then along comes a pompous civility policeman and blocks him - this time Mr Plod the Policeman blocks Corbett for a month (he really wants his name in lights and some acclamation) Then we all come here to see all the usual little nonentities squealing: "great block - well done." Well this situation really is a first for Wikipedia isn't it? What good is it supposed to do? It makes you all like like a bunch of nasty, little toadying children sucking up to the school bullies. If Corbett's behavior is really so shocking and unpalatable to you all, did your mothers never tell you that if you don't like someone stay away from them and if people are really rude, just ignore them and rise above? - Clearly not. Grow up and get a life all of you.  Giano  16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Saying "ignore the insults" can so easily be countered with "ignore the baiting", and doesn't actually excuse anybody's behaviour here. GiantSnowman 16:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please reduce this excessive block to at most 24h. Calling someone an asshole doesn't stop the person called asshole from doing work here. Blocking someone, on the other hand, obviously does prevent the blocked person from improving the encyclopedia (it doesn't prevent them from continuing to call you an asshole though, unless you revoke talk page access). The vast majority of Eric's edits are improvements to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Far too excessive. 24h maximum would've been right here, but this was a trivial issue and the block is punitive. And Doc9871 wasn't completely innocent in the issue either. Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support': It's clear that Eric has no willingness to abide by our policy on personal attacks. My only question is why anyone believes that the problem will resolve itself in a month.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculous block. Sure, we shouldn't call others assholes, but we also shouldn't go deliberately poking people in the passive-aggressive manner that so many have used successfully against Eric for years and then blocking them when they snap further -- and it's brought all of the usual rabble out of the woodwork who couldn't write a fucking article to save their lives, just to pile on when given the chance. Honestly, I'm getting so sick of the way productive contributors here are treated that I'm seriously considering retirement - management by community simply doesn't work when too large a percentage of that community are assholes. At the very least, this block needs to be reduced to either time served or 24 hours - as Black Kite says, the issue is trivial and the block is blatantly punitive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Who are this "usual rabble"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• What reason do you have to believe that Eric will not commit a similar infraction after the block is released? Isn't our normal standard for removing a block is that we believe the person that has been blocked understands the reason for the block and appears to have both the willingness and the capability to not repeat the behaviour? I'm sure that Eric understands the reason for the block. He may even have the capability to refrain from gratuitous insults. I still have seen no sign of a willingness to cease attacking people.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Way OTT - Black Kite's comment about a 24 hour block being the maximum seems right to me. Eric was baited/poked constantly, and their talkpage is a clear example of that. Eric called another user an asshole, but Doc9871 was just as out of line by calling them a "diva". The reason I agree with the block at all is their comments aimed at Inglok, not those aimed at Doc9871, whom as far as I'm concerned, was guilty of baiting. That said, the VirtualEditor is a piece of junk, but that's not really for this noticeboard. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block Too many chances have already been wasted by this editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculously excessive 1) civility blocks are a waste of effort 2) Eric got poked and the one doing the poking should have been blocked too 3) block is excessive, should be 0 or 24 hours at most 4) I'll save my comment about admins for later PumpkinSky talk 17:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Heavy handed. A 24 hour block could have been fairer for minor incivility under extreme provocation. I also firmly believe that in a case like this the troll should be blocked as well as the one who snaps. --John (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Block length is excessive. 72 hours would be more than enough. I don't condone the incivility but there appears to have been a lot of assholish behavior all around here and Eric calls it as he sees it. The baiting at Eric's talk only added fuel and should be addressed. Its long past time as well that seasoned editors not template the other seasoned editors...why not try just talking to them like they're humans instead of templating them. We ask that folks remain civil in most areas of the pedia and some of this was outside usertalk, but I think great latitude should be given to editors to speak freely on their own talkpage and therefore feel that actions against people for speaking freely on their own talkpages should be eliminated from block considerations.--MONGO 17:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block MF/Eric shows no understanding that such behavior is unacceptable and no willingness to change. As noted above, I see no indication he means to do anything but continue when he returns, particularly given the number of the times the same old arguments by his fans have been trotted out and/or he climbs up on the cross and threatens to retire, and he's been allowed to teflon out of this kind of behavior. His exchange in the thread above the one that lead to the block is outrageous, inexcusable and totally unprovoked. The block and its length are justified on the basis of that exchange alone; the one with Doc simply reinforces the need to remove him from the community for sufficient time that we can hope he might reconsider using every available opportunity to fire on any editor with whom he disagrees. There's a reason Malleus' username was corrupted into something more descriptive in some quarters of this community. He's an adult, it's reasonable to expect him to control himself, and he's simply unwilling or unable to do so, particularly given the cadre of editors willing to make excuses for him when he doesn't. Time for some accountability, not more hiding behind his friends and crying "he started it!" like an adolescent. --Drmargi (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the community is avoiding the real issue. Eric will always be Eric. He's not going to change. Sure he has his ups and downs and is sometimes more reasonable and sometimes more childish than other times, but that's not unusual. We really have only two choices. Either we block him indefinitely for his continuing misbehavior, or we don't block him at all because his misbehavior is outweighed by his valuable contributions to the project. The only way that would change is if he crosses into new territory, but I don't see that here. I see Eric just acting like Eric. He's even reacted to the block in his usual fashion, saying he won't be back. Recently, Eric called me an incompetent admin. I wasn't 100% sure if that was a compliment or an insult, but it's fairly typical Eric and didn't bother me much. As for what I think are our two choices, I don't think the community can make the choice as it's too divided. That said, without expressing an opinion myself on what we should do about the larger picture, I favor unblocking Eric.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because it's Manny being Manny doesn't make it appropriate, or does it generate any form of exception. Neither does the quality of work. Behaviour and work are not inseparable. If he wants to go nose-down, do his work, and ignore drama boards and refuse to make snide remarks everywhere across the project (or indeed, if he chose not to respond to almost everything that was not a neccesity), we'd have a shotlaod of work get done. He cannot help himself, unforunately. Unblocking sends the wrong message to Eric and every other editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb, I think there is a third possibility, not just the two you name: Change the policy. Malleus has been showing the community, intentionally or not, the CIV policy is flawed. So we fix it. The block rationale is about Malleus name-calling an editor(s) "asshole". OK, is the block then based on violation of NPA? OK, so change the NPA policy -- it has been broken forever. (Proof: If Malleus says to an editor: "You are an asshole", then gosh, it is laboriously grieved over [block Supporters] as "intolerable", "unacceptable", "outrageous", etc. But Kiefer is right ... If Malleus instead writes: "Your last response was assholish", then my gosh -- we wouldn't be here. No block. Nothing to grieve over. "You are an idiot" -- oh my gosh a big problem. But "Your last response was idiotic", well, that is peachy home-safe. [!?!?] So what is the difference then, that accounts for on one hand a huge debate and thrashing of sides? That the sentence structure Malleus uses containing the base-words "ass" or "idiot" is suboptimal and needs to be modified by him?! And if he makes that modification, if he tweeks the sentence structure when using those base-words, then all is well and this grief and enormous thrashing and debate suddenly doesn't exist!?) Does anyone else see how silly? (User:AutomaticStrikeout, you said the sentence differentials were "an important difference". I don't buy that. It's BS. It is "playing house" with words. It's politically correct superficiality.) This is a big clue to what is really wrong. It's not Malleus -- it's the policy. A policy that would assign such enormous importance to such a pedantic sentence structural differential is "good policy"? Huh?? So we all should go visit Malleus, knock on his door, and stress to him how vastly important it is to all of us that he make the sentence structure tweeks whenever using those incendiary base-words "ass" and "idiot", then we will be OK!? (I for one don't wanna be in that line to tell him that, because, it'd just feel silly.) CIV/NPA have always been ill-defined, unevenly enforced, always broken. It is why the same debate occurs over & over with never-ending drama and no progress. (It's barking up the wrong tree. Fix the policy. Not Malleus. [Malleus uses words carefully and ethically. If anyone challenges that, I'm perfectly willing to have a frank and thorough debate with you and prove you wrong. His expertise in editing is a bad start to any challenge to that, so please be prepared to lose the debate.]) Of course it's a non-trivial project to re-do CIV/NPA, but it's necessary and many editors have already called for it in the past. How lazy is that? (The policy needs to be made "smart". Right now, it's not. It needs thoughtful re-do. Only then will there be rational debate re violations. Only then won't the community be doomed to repeat these wasteful, recurring, go-nowhere drama-discussions.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, where did I say that? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good block and also support block length of one month as originally applied. Some editors above questioning the block length may be unaware of this editor's extensive history of this behaviour, going back to at least 2008, under his earlier account Malleus Fatuorum. 24 hours for this sort of thing would be appropriate for the first time, but is certainly not appropriate for the latest set of occurrences in a five year history of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. I too am appalled by EC's word choice. "Asshole"? Coming from an educated Brit with a good vocabulary? I trust he won't make the same mistake again: the correct word is arsehole. If there are any grown-up sysops left, I trust one of them will unblock. Writegeist (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Awful block. I don't issue and don't like civility blocks, and I especially don't like civility blocks for more than 12-24 hours. Blocking Eric (also, can we call him by his first name? Calling Eric "Corbett" is really quite smarmy) for a month for calling a few people assholes (on his own page, no less) is way over the top. Block if you must for 24 hours and call it a day. I think Fram is way too block-happy in general and this is no exception. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Where does this "on his own talk page" thing keep coming from, Keilana? How can this be thought of as being "on his own talk page"?—Kww(talk) 19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Kww: The last 3 diffs Fram provided were on his own talk page, I assumed they were the majority of the reasoning behind the block. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I interpreted the last 3 diffs as simply more evidence that Eric didn't think the first one was a problem.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good block: Actually, for a history of outbusts like this, he should be indeffed. Other editors do not need to be exposed to such abuse, and even if Eric does "good work", it means little if he is driving other editors away from the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• My !vote is Fuck this, I'm gonna go get a beer. :) --v/r - TP 19:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Beer is good. So, is a month off in summer. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Excessive - 24 hours to cool off, maybe. A month? Absurd. I'm a little unsure why the blocker still has access to a block button, actually, but that's another matter for another day... Carrite (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I find myself in the happy position of endorsing Keifer W. The block was needed, Eric expected it, and 48 hours is more than enough time. Actually it was "out of character" for Eric as he ended up with "you're an arse hat" commentary, rather than "your edits are a bunch of arse hat"; which has a fine though important distinction. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except, Pedro, that the block is a month, not 48h. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. I know that. What are you moaning about now? I thought you wanted a 24 hour block - I'm not adverse to that either. Or has your utter hatred of me taken over your senses once again? Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're on about. Please enlighten me. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support I don't disagree with the rationale for the block. By principle, we should be enforcing our conduct policies as they are written. However, I think a month is slightly over-the-top, and ideally, should be reduced. Signalizing (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Awfully good block, excessively overdue - Has anyone ever compiled statistics on how many times MF/EC has called someone an idiot or an asshole? How many editors have simply walked away after one of his childish tirades? While I would like to think that a month long block will cause him to reflect and mend his ways, that will surely never happen because of the enabling "devils advocates" who consistently disregard the fourth pillar because of some vague, single-minded goal of building the encyclopedia at any cost. Sheesh indeed; he should be banned. - MrX 20:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. MrX summarises nicely. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Excessive and punitive. Writegeist has it, too many children here spending too much time looking for something to be easily offended about. J3Mrs (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Bullshit block Civility policy? How about blocking policy? "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" (my emph.) This is a punitive block, plain and simple. A period of 12-24 hours to cool off and step away from the vehicle should have sufficed. I'm disgusted that Eric has been blocked for a month when genuinely disruptive, sock puppeting vandals get less. Supporters should be fucking ashamed of themselves. Of course, they actually won't be, wrapped up as they are in some kind of smug assholery because they nailed the boogeyman. Re: proposal to block Doc, I object to Doc being blocked because the incident has passed! Why initiate yet another non-preventative, purely punitive block? Keri (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC) (EC)
• Good block Chronic incivility is unacceptable and it does damage the project by causing decent editors to lose interest. On a side note, the "smug assholery" comment above doesn't exactly elevate the level of civility in this discussion, but I did find it creatively amusing. Taroaldo ✉ 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support block. Nobody should get a pass on basic civility towards other editors. The length of the block is not unreasonable. user:j (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Excessive block. Yes, civility matters. But we all too easily get into double standard territory when we block for mild cusswords like "asshole" and let snark pass. And the way I read it, Eric's been doing yeoman work at that Visual Editor Feedback page recognizing the good idea and reporting problems in the implementation (while most of us have run screaming). Yes, he has appallingly little patience when he thinks someone's being stupid. Yes, some of us manage to write the encyclopedia without blowing our tops all the time ... but then I for one get poked a lot less, probably in part because I have never played in the FA big leagues and have made a lot more stupid errors myself :-) (And in any case he's mellowed recently, until today. Yet this block is far beyond recent blocks on his previous account.) The bottom line is not, in my opinion, trying to weigh his contributions against others', it's whether this was a preventative block. I think it was way too long and we're seeing the result in terms of fuss and lost edits in more valuable places ... including that horrible Visual Editor Feedback page. Shorten to one week max. Better yet 48 hours, the length of his last delimited block, which was rapidly undone. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I have a certain amount of respect for Eric, but there's no denying that he crosses the line from time to time. He is responsible for his actions, but those who bait him are not without fault and neither are his friends who immediately rush to his defense at all times and ridicule anyone who dares to suggest that Eric could ever do anything block-worthy. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. When an experienced editor starts acting like that, they need a wikibreak, either voluntary or forced. If I were to start doing that, my expectation, even without the sort of history that Eric has with civility problems, would be that I would be blocked for a good couple weeks, and I'd be grateful that I was given time to let those contentious matters get resolved without all the opportunity to further shoot myself in the foot. A month is neither excessive, nor punitive, it is an opportunity for stuff to resolve and let Eric examine what he actually wants to do around here. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Stupid, pointless, excessive block. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Block length excessive I see both sides on this issue, and readily admit that I really wish that Eric would restrain his insults. But it seems clear to me that there are many editors here who delight in taunting him, and seem to hope that he will leave this project. Instead, I hope that he will stay here, as his contributions to the encyclopedia have been monumental. When I summoned up the courage to ask him to help me bring an article to GA status, he was gracious, incredibly helpful and kind to me when I succeeded. To his detractors, I would ask, do we want to lose this great contributor? To Eric, I would say, why do I have to summon up courage to interact with you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• The block itself is valid, with so many personal attacks made in one day. However, I don't believe the one-month duration is necessary under the circumstances. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock As one of Eric's talkpage stalkers I watched the latest drama unfolding, and will admit that I was a little surprised at the response Inglok received. (To be honest, my immediate reaction was to assume that Eric must be a little inebriated, but that's neither here nor there.)

Essentially, my thoughts echo those already expressed by John, Dennis, Bbb23 and Dr Blofeld (et al). What sways me firmly into supporting an immediate unblock rather than a reduction, is the fact that I saw the thread closed before I could post my vote, which irritated me immensely. I'm also dismayed by the totally unfounded comments re. "driving editors away"

And as for Mr.X's comments about the fourth pillar, I've always thought that the fifth pillar is top trump. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn. How Californian this is. The usual civility wonks say the usual things; the usual other parties say their usual things. This is going nowhere, we are not primarily a social network and in any event the oft-made claim that Eric drives editors away does not stand up to scrutiny. I've probably driven more away but no-one has blocked me yet. If anyone thinks that Wikipedia can somehow operate in a sanitised bubble, distinct from what happens in the real world, then they're a bit mad. Everyone is an asshole at some time or another, and everyone will think and say it of others from time to time: anyone who says differently is a liar. And for those who say such comments as "asshole" would result in dismissal if said in an employment environment, well, let me assure you that (a) this is not such an environment and (b) even if it were, I know of plenty where such forthright phrasing is in fact normal. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Good block Imposing a one month block for abusive conduct on an editor with a long history of this really should be uncontroversial. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block and ban. It is years that this ridicolous situation where Malleus/Eric is guaranteed immunity from basic behavioural norms. No matter the excellence of his contribution, a toxic environment cannot and should not be tolerated; an unfair environment cannot and should not be tolerated. --Cyclopia^talk 10:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Had a run in with him before by any chance? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, I never had any significant interaction with Malleus/Eric. But it's years I see this thing popping out, on the dramaboards, and it is disgusting the amount of tolerance for his behaviour -especially because it wouldn't be tolerated for most other editors, and rightly so. --Cyclopia^talk 11:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unjustified block. The policy it's based on is ill-defined, misguided, and "stupid" because it resorts to subjective emotional interpretations and biases. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. BTW, not too long ago an Admin sent me Email calling me "a mother-fucking asshole" and other names, and no one seems to give a shit about that -- so yes, I'm pissed at the hypocrisy. Get off of Malleus's back. Malleus only ever responds to incivilities. (Not optimally, but he never starts them. Deal with it.)
• Overturn a hasty block The issue at the root of this block had to do with language - and communication - Eric has a particular skill and a short fuse - but he communicates well - get off his back...Modernist (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm? Isn't everything we do here language and communication? It is normal in civil societies where argumentation is expected that there are rules and customs of argumentation, is it not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• IMO this forum and these talk pages are not a court of law - and while I agree that civility and polite decorum are desirable as overall communication guidelines - these language restrictions are utterly archaic - and seem to verge on the hypocritical and the absurd...Modernist (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• So you think that it's perfectly acceptable, when approached by an unfamiliar editor with a polite request regarding a revert he'd made, for an editor to respond with this reply? Is it "archaic" to think that is grossly inappropriate? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) It is not a court of law but decorum is not so limited. Moreover, most people most the time, here seem able to conduct themselves within the strictures, this would suggest that there is nothing archaic, except in the fact that rules of argumentation, where argumentation is expected, have been seen as needed throughout history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the point is that in the big picture people are responding emotionally to words when objectivity to deeds is what is called for...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The objective standard, here, is personal attack, because it has a defined limit, now of course there are edge cases where personal attack may be more difficult to see, but it also means that there are cases where personal attack is objectively and reasonably not difficult to see. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Having edited for more than 8 years I cannot begin to count how many times 'personal attack' has come up in the course of discussions and editing conflicts; people are emotional; thin skinned; and edgy especially at times when they perceive that honor and face is at stake - however in nearly every case that I have encountered editors rightfully move on; except as we have here - an editor under intense scrutiny - that intensifies every word he writes. My point is that objectively it adds up to a minor issue...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well. That's not surprising if people discuss personal attacks and perceived personal attacks, although, it does not seem to come up all that much in my experience where personal attacks are not made, and is usually easily dismissed in those cases -- but since it comes up often, it does not seem to objectively be minor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Terrible block He called a spade a spade, there's nothing to see here. BigDom (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: If someone has a job in which they are productive, the person would likely be fired for being constantly incivil to other employees. Wikipedia should work similarly even with the volunteer aspect. SL93 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Excellent block That Eric/Malleus says that he is unwilling to change[132] indicates that the block length should be increased, if anything. ECs are making it difficult to post here. Someone please insert a subsection heading somewhere above.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment (Since we're back here again. On independence day no less.) Good social network block. Bad encyclopedia block. Take your pick. If you think good content can be produced by nice people while sipping tea, munching on biscuits, and commenting on the weather. then sure, block away the few editors who contribute extensively to article space. Seems to me we've ended up with too many editors who have too much time on their hands and a predilection to using that time toward police work. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of our content is produced by non-divas, because that produces the best work. Dynamics of Software Development is nearly twenty years old now, and there are almost certainly warnings against the anti-pattern by which projects allow themselves to be dictated to by their supposed star performers older than that. "content contributors versus police" is, and always will be, a false dichotomy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• OPPOSE OPPOSE OPPOSE: Quite frankly, if I had a dime for every time I've also wanted to tell some WP:BAITing editor, "keep your fucking "snark" to yourself asshole," (as noted in the offending diff) I'd be able to retire wealthy. Malleus/Eric has never, to my knowledge, driven off an editor, and if he did it was undoubtably some sanctimonious jerk who the project is probably better off without. He speaks for all of us who try to be quality content editors but constantly have to deal with people who are legends in their own minds who do boneheaded things and then when called on it start talking to us as if we are too stupid to tie our own shoes. This is a crap block. If you wanted to do a 24 hour slap for saying "asshole", I suppose you could have and we'd probably be done with the drama by now. But crap, A F---ING month? Now you've cost me my best copyeditor when I'm in the middle of a FAC and I'm not happy about it! Montanabw^(talk) 16:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

A month may seem excessive in retrospect. There is absolutely no reason to bite the newbies and/or respond like this to a third party. Doc's actions alone were not great, but taking away those interactions still leaves Corbett calling Timeshifter an "asshole" first, getting warned by a third party, and announcing "Since when was calling an asshole an asshole a crime?" [133] And we don't even have to go 24 hours before another instance occurs with, "You write like a ten-year-old, time for you to fuck off now."[134] This is completely unacceptable. This is a singular case, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, but the effect on the community is indeed great. Content production should not allow such actions to be tolerable. I'll take some heat for this, but if Corbett agrees to abide by NPA for a month, which includes no derogatory comments or "fuck offs", unblock him. The supporters of the block want the behavior to stop, and the opposers think it is excessive, but we all agree that the civility issue exists. Give a good amount of rope and see what Corbett does with it. Fram's block should have sent a strong message, but a conditional unblock would be appropriate. Also, Corbett should report or remove the baiting comments without attacks themselves, civility cuts both ways. Provokers aught to get the same action; more so if the intention is to harass Corbett into a block. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hear hear. --John (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Excessive? What reason do you have to believe that there will be a new and different Eric Corbett in 32 days? If anything, a month is inadequate. Eric should be blocked until we have a credible reason to believe that the misbehaviour will stop, not for a month, but permanently.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If there were some topic ban that could be imposed which would allow Eric to get on with article work without this sort of drama, then I would say impose that topic ban and unblock him right away. Unfortunately, there is no topic ban I can imagine that would fix this problem: Eric reverts someone with an edit summary they end up disliking, then they come to his talk page asking a question about it without being aware of his "special status" where they're supposed to walk away when he treats those asking such questions with snide contempt. It's not like a topic ban can realistically ban him from replying to things on his own talk page; and previous attempts to encourage him to change how he replies to things on his own talk page have failed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is already just such a topic ban: it's called WP:NPA; and if Eric wants to get on with his (extremely valuable) article work without this sort of drama that choice is open to him, and always has been. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww doesn't think anyone can change and if you screw up even a little, you should be infinitely blocked. Someone should IAR and indef him for the good of the project. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that, and it misrepresents my views completely. What sign do you see that Eric is both willing and able to change after five years of being frequently blocked for this problem?—Kww(talk) 18:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• A month is not excessive at all. I would have supported a community ban. Like Kww says, it's reasonable to assume that Eric will continue his long history of uncivil behavior once this block runs out. Behavior like his drives other good editors away from the project. They don't come here for abuse, and shouldn't be subjected to it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• And have you ever bothered to look into the history of abuse Eric has taken from other editors? I don't know which way around it started, but put it this way: he's taken just as much abuse as he's given out, and probably more. Even in this very thread, an example of such abuse, completely unwarranted, is shown. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rest assured, I would also vote to block or ban them as well if they have been abusive as Eric has, should a proposal were brought here. The fact that he has recieved abuse as well does not excuse his behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let's face it, an Eric who calls someone an asshole occasionally is still far more of a positive to the encyclopedia that the vast majority of our editors, myself and many commenting here included. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• But that seems to imply that you can be uncivil as long as you are productive; I'm not going to endorse my work or anyone's work as being "better" than anyone elses. If did 30-40 GA or FA, does that give anyone immunity or wide latitude to be ornery and rude? I say no. I much rather have an admission that Eric try to restrain such comments and deal with them as other experienced members of the community should. A slip up here and there is one thing; to err is human, but it seems as if the community will tolerate such behavior as long as the editor is productive and valuable for content matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, but a month's block for a civility issue that would have gained a completely unexceptional 24h block from practically anyone else is a net negative. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• It has become obvious that incivility is perfectly acceptable as long as the person being uncivil has a lot of friends. Of course, there is exception to that rule for administrators, who must either behave perfectly at all times or else be immediately de-sysopped. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You earned an achievement! Secret Rules. — Scott • talk 22:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I generally agree with John; this block is heavy-handed at the very least. We all know Eric, we know that he does not suffer impudence gladly, and are we all really that thin-skinned? If I threw a fit every time someone called me some name, I'd be in a padded cell by now. Sticks and stones, and all that. And yes, this does imply that you can hurl the occasional a-word or f-word if you're productive. Find me a project worth pursuing that progresses with no acrimony or argument. My two cents. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Any objection to Doc9871 being blocked for a few days ? Nick (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Seeing as he has no clue regarding what he has done, I wouldn't oppose it (note his talk page). --Rschen7754 20:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I should think Eric is big enough to handle Doc's behavior. After all, anyone who ever complains about Eric's behavior is a juvenile idiot who needs to grow up. Eric's friends wouldn't want to be hypocrites, would they? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If its not too much, could you retract or re-word the second part of your statement? Let's not feed the fire. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think referring to editors who object to incivility as "juvenile idiots" is making a useful contribution to this discussion? How does the childish name-calling help further the development of this project? Taroaldo ✉ 00:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That sentence of my post was written facetiously. I don't at all believe those who object to Eric's behavior are "juvenile idiots", rather I was suggesting that some of Eric's friends hold that viewpoint. I was also attempting to point out the inconsistency of how Eric's supporters will ridicule those who complain about his behavior and then complain themselves when others are rude to Eric. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm a "friend" of Eric's (unfortunately, none of my friends edit Wikipedia, and they think it's a silly hobby of mine), but as someone who thinks and has expressed that Eric's block was excessive, I agree that it would be neither necessary nor helpful to block Doc9871 for his banter (at best) or baiting (at worst) on Eric's talk page. Two wrongs won't make a right. If Doc doesn't understand how his posts helped escalate the situation, that is a pity, but he won't understand it any better just by being blocked. The solution to this whole mess is to stop blocking regular no-nonsense content contributors, not to block even more of them. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as it's been several hours, a block is probably not that helpful, but if it happens again that's probably grounds for a block. --Rschen7754 02:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately support original block, including length. Normally, I'd see no reason to participate in a discussion about who said what and who blocked whom when I'm not involved. But this looks like one of those instances where sooner or later someone will try to divine "consensus" by counting noses, and so here's my nose.

I think it's important that we have some civility norms on the project. I'm not sure exactly what those norms should be, and due to (sub)cultural differences they are hard to agree on. But it's pretty clear this type of outburst is beyond the pale. If it were an isolated occurrence, we could all just politely move on. But it's not an isolated occurrence for Eric. And if it continues to be tolerated for Really Productive Writers like Eric, then that will make the boundaries of what is tolerable for the community as a whole more porous.

That leaves the question of appropriate block length. Blocks of a day or so have clearly made little difference in Eric's behaviour. The most pessimistic interpretation is that Eric might just be unable to brush off criticism, deserved or undeserved, without turning into a roaring dragon. Unfortunately, in that case sooner or later we will need to remove him from the community permanently, since he and we are unable to function productively. The more optimistic interpretation is that in other environments Eric is able to handle himself much better, in which case this is a problem of our own making: we have trained Eric that this type of interaction is acceptable for him. In this case, we need to change our response. A lengthier block, during which Eric can decide if he wants to engage here on different terms than before, is unfortunately likely the best option to try.

I am reminded of a technical group I managed several years ago. We were a well functioning team and brought in a genius new team member, who had some real behavioural issues. Unfortunately, I tolerated his antics, giving him only weak chastisements. Since he was getting away with bad behaviour, team norms degenerated significantly. Eventually, I had to let him go, but it took months for team norms and morale to recover. Meanwhile, he went to the competition, where he tried the same sorts of antics. The wiser manager there intervened much more conclusively, and the fellow -- a very smart chap -- quickly realized what the real boundaries were and cleaned up his act. The competition got some really good work from him that could have been ours had I had a bit more backbone. Martinp (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish I'd said something half as articulate during the last ArbCom matter that referenced his behavior. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What a disgustingly patronising and twee little homily, Martin. I nearly lost my breakfast. --John (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds, here. First, I agree that the policy needs to be fixed - incivility and personal attacks need to be distinguished properly. As a very smart editor said, above, if Eric had said that the last comment was assholish, there would have been no block. Instead, we're here with more drama. On the other hand, though, any change to policy that makes it easier to bully or attack other editors is unacceptable. People argue that Eric should not be blocked because he has a lot of really good content work - but if that means he gets a pass to bully editors with fewer FAs than him? Nope. I have no interest in such a website. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't about Malleus calling someone an asshole on his talk page. It's about things like this reply this, whether accompanied by naughty words or otherwise. "Your writing is at a level I'd expect of a primary-school child" is not technically attacking the person, only their writing. It's still a flagrant personal insult. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed block of Giano

This is never going to gain traction, and is merely more heat than light
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Giano is entitled to his opinion that this is not a good block. However, he is not entitled to belittle admins or refer to those who hold an opposing view as "nonentities". Therefore, I'm proposing a block of Giano for a minimum of 24 hours. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I think you will find that I am entitled to "belittle" ridiculous, little Admins, and that also you are quite pointless.  Giano  18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "ridiculous, little admins" is a matter of opinion and your vendetta against all admins (which is how I see it) is quite pointless. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I can only offer up that well known prayer "May God preserve us from 19-year-olds of the "Christian Baptist persuasion."  Giano  19:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC) What does my age or religious belief have to do with my taking offense at your stereotyping of anyone who dares to disagree with Eric Corbett? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I am merely praying dear boy - do Baptists deny me this right?  Giano  19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Would you mind answering the question? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I would mind. I am deep in prayer. Please respect that.  Giano  19:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Giano is indeed entitled to belittle admins and anyone he so chooses to belittle. He is the original unblockable. --Conti|✉ 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Maybe so, but even the most unblockable editor shouldn't be allowed to get away with deriding someone because of his age and beliefs. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC) You're getting just a little tedious now Automatic! I can't be blocked because I have only spoken fact. I am a great admirer of Baptists and the young and also a great admirer of those who encourage the freedom of speech. I just cannot admire the narrow minded and mealy mouthed (which I am sure you're not). Now Eric actually writes the encyclopedia, most of those commenting and glorying in his block do not. Now that is a cast iron fact - so put it in your pipe and smoke it!  Giano  19:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Pish posh, mish mosh, trick-a-dilly doo. You might as well stop now. No one is going to listen to you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC) No, I don't think blocking Giano would be a good idea, and in the scheme of things "nonentities" is ....meh. Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I suggest this is hatted, before even more drama is created. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC) This is an even worse idea than the 1 month block of Eric. PumpkinSky talk 19:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I thought it was quite amusing. A little light hearted diversion from the main headline of the day which was "Admin makes name for himself with outrageously exaggerated block."  Giano  20:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• I was going to raise an eyebrow at the block length myself, but then I dug through to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMalleus%20Fatuorum --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 makes a lot of sense in his comment here. I'm pretty tired of history repeating itself. Eric is who he is, either we just ignore what is considered "incivility" on his behalf or we ban him completely. Blocking him for a month I can't see how anything benefits from that. We know that blocking him for any duration will never change Eric, he is who he is. I understand the feeling behind "he can't call somebody an asshole and get away with it" but reacting to him is probably the most unproductive thing you can do. It basically comes down to content vs civility, which is more important. My answer would be, given what Eric contributes to wikipedia, that he is a net plus so the best thing would be to simply ignore him or remove his comments if you consider them offensive, and if he can't accept admins removing personal attacks then a 24 hr block might be warranted. This really isn't the way to deal with this, and meanwhile we lose out on his editing for an entire month.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is that important to the project. A lot of people would be willing to put in more time and effort if there wasn't so much incivility and combativeness around, so "losing out" on incivil editors' edits won't be any loss at all. If this were a project management team meeting live around a real table every day, how long do you think incivility like this would be tolerated? Taroaldo ✉ 00:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Giano, especially inspired following his period of prayer and reflection mentioned above, has made a very interesting suggestion about a way forward that would allow Eric to continue working with people that wish to work with him to improve articles, while also avoiding many or most of the problems that have been seen along the way. Worth serious consideration. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is an outside comment. It is said that Eric contributes constructively to Wikipedia, which is true. But the question of content vs. civility is a false dichotomy. An editor who contributes to Wikipedia but who drives away other editors by incivility may have a net negative effect by discouraging other editors from contributing positively to Wikipedia. I don't want to get involved in the length of the block, except to say that incivility has its own negative effect on content by discouraging editors who are looking for the environment that Wikipedia policies dictate. We should not overlook the fact that uncivil editors, if they have a long history of being uncivil after repeatedly being warned, cause other editors to go away. Is that what we want? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Eric warned me, but has always been helpful, friendly and gentle - to me. Think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well if he's always been nice to you, that's all that matters then, I guess? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What Robert said. --Jayron32 23:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see lots of claims that Eric is chasing away editors, but I've not seen the editors that were chased away. And a good part of my day is dealing with disgruntled editors via WP:WER. I get tons of email from frustrated editors every week. None of them mention Eric. Just because someone says "Eric is chasing away editors" does not mean it is true, and it isn't. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it more true. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Because those editors aren't making grand, showy announcements declaring their impending retirement and giving itemized lists of people who caused their untimely downfall. Instead, they just stop coming to a place they find generally hostile and unpleasant to work at. It isn't irrational to presume that casual editors, who would otherwise have something important to give to Wikipedia, would not find it worth the abuse if people across Wikipedia behaved towards them as is shown in the diffs above. Thankfully, everyone doesn't, but there has to be some reason for the declining editorship at Wikipedia, and some portion of it has to be that many people who just disappear do so because they are not made to feel welcome and just give up, and the fact that they don't name Malleus as the sole reason for their leaving doesn't mean this sort of behavior has a positive effect on the growth of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:: don't any of your WER correspondents mention an unpleasantly hostile and combative atmosphere? Shouts of "Fuck!" and "Asshole!" drifting out of the door of a bar would make me decide to go elsewhere. We worry about the gender gap - I'm sure this is an important factor. So one answer to What might this block achieve? is: a Wikipedia where an innocent, though not clearly expressed, enquiry on a public page does not produce this sort of exchange. When conduct like that is tolerated, it spreads. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not condoning Eric's actions and you can see I supported a block above. Still, painting Eric as the boogey man of editor retention is hyperbole. If Eric walked away tomorrow, it wouldn't put a dent in our editor retention problems. If you compare the good he has done for new editors vs. the bad, the goods come out ahead here. It isn't obvious at first glance because every time Eric does something good (which is often), you don't see people pile in at ANI to announce it. Like most of us, the good things are usually overlooked, and as such, the claims given here are not balanced. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall that one reason this whole incident occurred is because Eric couldn't stay civil when discussing the visual editor, which is one of WMF's primary editor retention projects. There is no weighing up of good versus bad here: the good behaviour is not dependent on the bad at all, save for that getting away with the bad serves to stroke the ego which feeds the good. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, he's not the boogey man of editor retention, but every time this comes up his supporters argue that bad language and deliberate rudeness don't matter, and I think that is seriously wrong. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh jeez freakin christ, is it stupid season among the admins? So soon again? Didn't we just have this? There've been (at least) two idiotic blocks in the past 24 hrs (Eric and Kiefer, by Kww). And there's still twits running around with blood/block lust.Volunteer Marek 00:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dodgy close

My unclosing of what appears to be an out-of-process and incompetent close has been reverted by the closer. I am not prepared to edit-war over this, but it does not appear to be a competent close. We do not normally consider a bare majority to be a consensus. On such a controversial issue I would like to see a longer discussion and a more emphatic consensus. --John (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you know that "we" DO consider a bare majority to be a consensus. I came to stop thinking that "consensus" means something positive. My questions above (Remember: "What is that block going to achieve?", stress on "achieve") were not answered, so I didn't even "vote" yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The original close was questionable (and I'm saying that as someone who supports the block on Eric) but this mis-use of rollback to wheelwar by closing it again is disgusting. GiantSnowman 09:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So what is the block going to achieve? It seems to me we have a minority of non-content contributors pushing through a block on a content creator here. That doesn't make sense to me, can someone who supports the block explain it to me please? --John (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed multiple FAs to this site, I don't think we should be saying that "content contributors" should have more of a say, any more than we should be saying that "admins" have more of a say. That's against all that Wikimedia stands for. --Rschen7754 09:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blatant wheel-war and incompetent supervote/close - I have reverted it. If he does it again, I'd urge a block for wheel-warring - how about one of those admins supporting the block of Eric turning your attention to abuse from one of your own kind? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but coming from you, a vocal opponent of the block, your action can be construed as less than neutral - wouldn't you agree? --Rschen7754 09:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I did consider that, but I'm becoming so ashamed of being part of what is increasingly becoming a bullying and self-serving admin cadre, that I was not prepared to let such a blatant abuse of power go uncorrected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, but wheel wars never solve matters... --Rschen7754 10:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
        • So why aren't you telling that to Sjakkalle? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, as I was going to post, two, or three, or four wrongs don't make a right. --Rschen7754 10:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Boing! said Zebedee should not have undone the close, he was a participant who has clearly strong opinion in the discussion. I did not make a supervote close, the close was based on ArbCom precedent and policy, and the principles behind them had a support of a majority of the editors in the discussion. I admit that my use of rollback on John's unclosing was in error and I apologize for that, I should have used "undo" with an explanation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No Sjakkalle, you should not have undone the close. Ideally it should never have been closed in the first place... GiantSnowman 09:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No Sjakkalle, you should not have undone John's revert at all. Once your close was contested and reverted, you should have left it for further discussion - it was clearly a close call and a hotly-contested issue, and clearly the community deserved the right to not be prematurely silenced by you. As for whether or not I should have reverted you, well, I just couldn't sit by and see such a blatant abuse as wheel-warring go unchecked - I believe any reasonable editor should have the right to revert such action, whether they have taken part in the discussion or not. (And for the record, I have resigned my admin status) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (further ec) Sjakkalle, I notice that your close references his previous admonishment by Arbcom. I can't find this used by commentators in the discussion as a reason for the appropriateness of the length of the block. Perhaps you can show me - there is a large wall of text, and I must have missed it, twice. If it isn't there, and it's simply your view of why the block length is reasonable, then it's an opinion to add to the discussion, not a reason to use on closing it in favour of the result you want. That would be a supervote close. Bencherlite^Talk 09:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The ArbCom case was not referenced in this discussion, but a prior arbitration rulings on this editor are clearly of relevance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Then that makes it the addition of *your* opinion and not a judgment of the consensus! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Jesus wept, just free the Wiki one and stop the drama. Shite block, if a person can't handle being called an arsehole online he is in for a rude awaking when he hits the real world. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  In the real world, people who abuse their colleagues get told to clear their desk and accompany security to the front door. — Scott • talk 10:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not where I am from, we call it "banter", it is what grown ups do. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not where I'm from either. And even the clergy are prone to call something bollocks when it is indeed bollocks. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  {(edit conflict x2)} Yep, I've had plenty of jobs where such "abusive" behaviour was the norm — they were the fun ones. And Wikipedia is nothing like "the real world" (whatever that is) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  What experts and professors wouldn't love to contribute to a wiki where calling each other "asshole" over the most minor disagreements is perfectly acceptable? Randy in Boise, however, will be put off by such harsh language, and never edit again. I'm sure. --Conti|✉ 11:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  We are not lads down the pub. GiantSnowman 11:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  It would be instructive to see what pubs some of the anti-civility brigade frequent, if insulting and picking fights with random strangers is seen as so consequence-free. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Feel free to be instructed. Get yourself down to Manchester and I'll take you to my local, where you won't see any snide remarks of the type so common in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  I dare say that the last time I was in Manchester provided a closer analogue to Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  You are talking bollocks, of course. I've come to expect that of people who avidly support the utopian civility requirements found here: fucking clueless about the rich variety of life, most of them seem to be. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  The vast majority of adults find complying with our "utopian civility requirements" extremely easy, and that it usually takes a conscious effort to significantly overstep the mark. As for this inane "this wouldn't happen in my pub" line of argument, allow me to give you a non-jokey answer this time: it's such a contemptible falsehood as to not deserve a direct rebuttal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sjakkalle, to say that someone who participated in the discussion can't revert your close shows an amazing lack of clue here. Your close was a text book example of supervote, using information not previously introduced and an improper synthesis of what took place. Had I seen it, I would have reverted it as not properly reflecting consensus and for being a blatant and obvious supervote. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Given Skakkalle's comment "The ArbCom case was not referenced in this discussion, but a prior arbitration rulings on this editor are clearly of relevance", I have removed the text he added when attempting to close the debate, because thinking "this is relevant but no-one else has mentioned it" in such circumstances *is* a supervote close. Skakkalle, feel free to add your personal opinions as to what is relevant and what is not to the debate, like everyone else. Bencherlite^Talk 10:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The close was obviously premature since people are still commenting, and the direction seemed to change somewhat after the first few hours. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I rarely, if ever, comment on discussions about Corbett, but when I saw Boing's request to hand in the tools, I came along here to see what all the kerfuffle was about. It looks to me as if the close was a 'Quick, close it while there's a consensus and before it changes or people change their minds'. And now we're losing admins. Maybe that's what the people want - a slow but conspicuous errosion of the admin corps, but IMO, we're losing the wrong ones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps what people want is for everyone to catch the diva disease, whereby all discussion is based on ultimata regarding "content contributors" "withholding labour", or sympathetic admins being talked off ledges at BN. Because in the infantile world of ANI, where one single editor who can't behave wastes entire days of people's lives in these debates, that's pretty much where we're already at. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Given that there are so many people claiming Eric has driven away editors, and yet haven't shown evidence of that, it's depressingly ironic to see that they themselves have driven away two editors - Boing! said Zebedee, and Eric. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neither have been "driven away", and if they have, maybe it is they should get the "thicker skin" that editors seem to enjoy talking about when describing those who try and uphold civilty. I remember the last time time Malleus/Eric was involved in something like this (there have been many); he claimed to have scrambled his password and have retired 5eva but he was back editing a few days later. GiantSnowman 11:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• It's difficult to get empirical evidence of normal people going away. They just leave, and don't come back. They don't, unlike Eric, make a very large fuss about retiring every three months or so, accompanied by a circus of followers pleading for them not to leave, accompanied by a swift change of heart that generates another round of unctuous praise. But in general, it's not difficult to find peer-reviewed studies examining the negative impact on morale and productivity resulting from incivility in the workplace, or on participation rates online. That's why nearly every other corner of the Internet has spent much of the last decade coming up with the sort of codes of conduct that we've had, and in the case of a handful of celebrity editors ignored, since the beginning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• If Boing wants to take the DIVA route in response to this, that's his choice, but hardly one I find worthy of respect. I've said all along that the biggest problem with Eric/Malleus are the people who act as his enablers. So long as we treat him as an untouchable, his personal attacks and the resulting drama will never stop. If others want to fall on their swords and play act the role of martyr, so be it. It's just a transparent, and frankly pathetic, attempt at forcing the community to, yet again ignore the problem. Until we are right back here again next month, at least. Resolute 14:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Boing et al that the abuse, bullying, and circle the wagons mentality among admins gets worse and worse. And what does it take to deal with such an admin? Years and years of countless victims and arduous RFCs an Arbcom cases. PumpkinSky talk 11:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment in response. Yes, incivility and hostility are liable to drive people away. However, calling something a "disgustingly patronising and twee little homily" - to choose one example from this discussion - is to my mind ruder than calling someone an asshole or even asserting that they write like a ten-year-old. Local standards - and personal weak spots - do vary. Just sayin'. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• That was also grossly inappropriate, and in a world where we didn't have the Overton window of acceptable discourse constantly tugged to the right by a handful of malcontents we'd hopefully be able to clamp down on that as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• It would be nice if we had neither, yes. However, my point is a more specific one: differing perceptions of which is worse have a bearing on the magnitude of the civility problem - and the length of the block - here. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not really: the comment was meant to be grossly offensive, because that's John's default approach to defending Malleus from accusations of incivility. All the water-muddying here comes from one side of the debate; the rest of us need not continually strive to lawyer out exactly what constitutes incivility because we can channel Potter Stewart to know it when we see it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Remaining content builders must now simply accept that the battle for any dignity on Wikipedia has been decisively lost. Power now resides wholly in the hands of administrators, frequently incapable hands, as we have clearly seen over the last two months.--Epipelagic (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Somewhere in the ether Lenny Bruce is laughing over the utter inanity of this; dirty words - oh no...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The lesson that people are supposed to have learned by the time they grow up is that there's more to civility and decency than choice of words. Those who can neither see why naughty words are inappropriate, nor see why comments without naughty words could be construed as such, have failed to learn that lesson. Elsewhere on the Internet, these people are gradually being ostracised from the communities that they used to make so unpleasant. That process is taking longer than usual on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The point of language is communication; the great lesson that Lenny Bruce taught us is the method and currency of communication and language is always changing; words can hurt although deeds can hurt much more...Modernist (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• And the deed here is a long-running campaign to belittle, attack or otherwise shoo away, through the use of grossly offensive comments and behaviour, any who won't bow down to a certain set of self-appointed elites. That's precisely why the "content contributor" cult seeks to define itself as the opposite of the admin corps; straightforward psychological projection. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• And aren't you reading a little too much into a guy's short response in an editing hassle?..Modernist (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't an isolated incident. It's a symptom of a much longer and more severe problem. Which is why all the appeals above to shorten this to a 24 hour block are at best naive and at worst blatantly dishonest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I said above - frankly I don't think this block should have happened. Although I'm neither naive or blatantly dishonest, but rather objective - the issue was too minor to merit this overreaction...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that there is a growing and unhealthy antipathy towards admins in general. It usually comes from those who have an axe to grind, and those who believe that gross incivility is perfectly acceptable, but a lot of it comes from righteously indignant minors who can be saved from themselves, and more mature users who are not directly involved but who think it's cool to jump on the anti-admin bandwaggon. It's harder, if not nigh on impossible to help them see things differently because they are determined to tar all admins with the same brush. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered that some of the antipathy is likely to stem from admins making statements that tar people who disagree with them as "righteously indignant minors", and suggest that they see their role as redeeming such individuals in some way? Yes, a lot of the antipathy is unwarranted. Some of it, however, is. And both parts are exacerbated by statements like that one. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Go forth to improve the encyclopedia and sin no more We're now 1.5 days into the same argument of "Vested Content Editors" vs "Civility Enforcemnt" debate again. Would it be better if all editors, regardless of their contributions, remained calm and collected regardless of the problems? Yes. Would it be better if Civility were enforced equally? Yes. Does the community, Administrators, ArbCom have the backbone to do something about it? Not in this lifetime. So why bother attempting to enforce sanctions on editors that have a rubber shield (or a well connected posse) to defend them from sanctions that would have netted annother editor. Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what the big problem here is? It's very simple: the arrogance of the self-styled "content creators", who think that they are better than everyone else and shouldn't be forced to follow the rules. There is no reason why admins would randomly decide to make trouble for the people who write large amounts of content. Anyone who propagates that theory is either kidding themselves or simply a bald-faced liar. Rather, these "content-creating" people (who don't seem to believe that anyone else has ever written an article) are extremely arrogant, largely because they have so many friends who pat them on the back and tell them how wonderful they. This gives them a sense of entitlement, which causes problems. When the admins are forced to deal with these problems, the troublemakers and their trouble-making friends resort to playing the "I create more content than you do so, so I can do whatever I want and you don't count for anything" game. That is the problem. The most embarrassing aspect of this sorry reality is that these people are usually the ones seen accusing other people of being childish. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid reading this thread, but decided to have a look and started at the bottom, with the comment above. As a non-admin, and someone who almost exclusively writes content, how can this be read in any way other than insulting? And quite frankly as incivil as the comments that initiated this mess, except without the profanity? Victoria (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you jump into a very convoluted discussion and only read one comment, you're missing an awful lot of context and background. What I wrote above is my impression of the way things are based on what I've seen over the past several months (I wasn't always paying attention to this stuff and I enjoyed Wikipedia a lot more when I wasn't aware of all the drama). Not all content writers are abusive and arrogant, but the ones who are make an awful lot of noise. If you read though the entire discussion, you will see that someone above told that I am "quite pointless". The condescending mindset I described above does exist. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

**HEADFDESK** OK, so CONTENT EDITORS are the problem here? OK, let's walk through the logic: Who actually makes wikipedia an ENCYCLOPEDIA and not just some drama chat board? Hmmm... CONTENT EDITORS!!!! And, beyond that, the other wiki-gnomes and assorted fauna who help with the underlying syntax, coding and cleanup. The denizens of teh "drahmahz" boards who can't stand being called on their tenditious, annoying not-helpful junk? Far less so. So yes, Strikeout, we self-styled "content creators" have some grounds for our attitude; without us you'd have no encyclopedia! It would be nice if Eric/Malleus was more careful with his insults, but to my knowledge, he's never insulted someone who didn't deserve it, and he's never baited an innocent bystander into an attack. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Change in policy

One thing this entire incident has show us is that our policies regarding (in)civility and personal attacks are simply not fit for purpose. In my eyes there is no difference between the statements "you are an idiot", "you edit like an idiot" and "your edits are idiotic". GiantSnowman 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This does not seem the appropriate forum to discuss policy change, but what is your alternative? All expressions of belittlement are verboten? The first two are PA, as the focus is the editor, the last although pretty devoid of anything useful as analysis focuses on the edit, although perhaps extended argumentation of that sort will be considered disruptive incivility because it is so uninformative except as to the author's feelings, and devoid of reasoned expression of analysis (ie. it doesn't say what is idiotic about the edits). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying make the change here, I'm just saying a change needs to be made. GiantSnowman 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Then any editor starting a new section here to announce that might be seen as soapboxing...Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made that argument once on Wikipedia and the mantra-like response was, "of course there is." Context is important when you're insulting other people or criticizing their actions using offensive language. For example, in real life, if I tell a good friend something he did was "stupid", we know each other well enough for him to understand that I'm not calling him stupid, just the thing he did. However, if I say to a stranger that something they did was stupid, it's more likely they are going to take it as if they were called stupid - and I think that's understandable. On Wikipedia, many times when we say an edit is stupid, we don't know the person. Even when we do, we rarely know them well. Therefore, the receiver is more likely to perceive the comment as a personal attack. That said, what's most important is most if not all of the time comments like "your edit is stupid" are unnecessary, and are generally said either out of frustration or because the sayer is being mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that we aren't joking with friends here, we are trying to collaborate anonymously or semi-anonymously with relative strangers. GiantSnowman 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Precisely the point I was making. That doesn't necessarily mean I advocate a change in policy. It's fairly complicated here because of the intersection of policy and culture, often the latter trumping the former.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not the contributor" is supposed to be a social guideline. It's only turned into a testable law because we insist on defending rank incivility. The problem is that (as I'm sure you're aware from perennial discussions at WT:FOOTY) a sizeable proportion of the community is simply unable to evaluate any matter in terms other than black or white, and thus every guideline is eventually sharpened into some utterly binary distinction. Our only real recourse to that is ArbCom, and the vesteds know it, which is why the Arbs have always had it harder than the admin corps in general gets it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

How true; how sad. GiantSnowman 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Closure

As I'm sure most people know, Eric has been indefinitely blocked at his request. So what are we now doing here? Are we arguing about Fram's block even though Eric is no longer blocked for the reasons given by Fram? More important, we have already lost (hopefully only temporarily) the services of one two good admins, do we continue this so we can inflict more collateral damage? If I closed this, would it be wheel-warring? Can any admin close this? I mean really.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. Sum up and close. The only thing that can happen is someone will object, and then they can discuss their objections with you. Just make it a reasonably good close. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

@User:AutomaticStrikeout: My mistake, I confused your username with Pedro's username in this post. Sorry for the error, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the "self-requested block" implemented by Scottywong[135] (though not mentioned on Eric Corbett's talk page) was dubious, since EC continued to discuss the request with other talkpage posters afterwards, saying he was going to be away for a week and would consider his options when he got back.[136] Yeah I know EC can request an unblock, but he's traditionally been unwilling to do that, so Scottywong's block invoking a post of EC that was already under the bridge while discussion was still going on, comes across as a bit "gotcha", and the subsequent closure above treats it as a fait accompli. I don't consider myself a fan of EC but overall IMHO this is unimpressive. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess it just shows that there is something Wikipedians can learn from Wikipediocracy after all! Specifically, how to deal with WP:DIVA antics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding Wikipediocracy, but I see their recent activities as despicable, so I hope you're not suggesting we follow their example about anything. Note: I see there is some discussion on Scottywong's talk page about the indef, so I left a comment there. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Recap

What has happpened over the last few days should be no surprise to any long time user. This sort of thing has been going on for years. But this time, for those who don't know: Boing turned in his bit and left, Drmies turned in his bit, Dennis states he is depressed and on break. I hope that the community, instead of staying stuck in the abyss it usually is, can finally comes to terms and find a solution to these issues that works. Otherwise, wiki is truly forever doomed. PumpkinSky talk 18:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been doomed for quite some time now. The project is sick, and the sicker it gets, the sicker it gets. Content contributors are getting blocked to satisfy the trolls. I much prefer Eric's honest and open incivility to the villainy and dirty tricks of his hounds. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If it has been going on for years, did you try to do anything about it as an arbitrator? What success did you have? Your experience could come in valuable for us, perhaps? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No onen gives a crap what I think. I'm a persona non grata. PumpkinSky talk 20:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, be careful what you ask for. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why the block was imposed in the first place. Eric is British, and the corresponding word he should have used if he wanted to be offensive is "arsehole". At the moment, he used a word that is really a neologism to British English, and can be interpreted as being "A hole for, or of, asses (donkeys)". You may think my point is ridiculous, but it highlights that there are language differences between British English and American English, and this needs to be taken into account, just as there are differences in cultural ways of discussion. It is also as tortuous as some of the arguments I have seen, where veiled comments about "driving away editors" are made which, in the context of content, would require a reliable source to back it up, but here, seem to suffer from the fallacy that if enough people yell it loud enough and for long enough, it takes on a powerful position of almost unquestioned truth. Someone mentioned rules of argumentation, above. Eric conformed exactly to an accepted normative species of argumentation (in the scheme set up by an internationally-well known expert in such things, Douglas Walton), which highlights that before such issues are raised, one needs to get a consensus over what normative rules should apply: in my academic life, I have attended important national and international conferences (not pub discussions as one person twisted what others have said) where worse names have been thrown around, and, one time, I was almost set upon and thumped when giving a talk by someone who vehemently disagreed with me (and for the record, if he had thumped me, I would accepted this as really the only response he could give to the discussion, given its nature about the necessity of using logic in one arguments). No one has examined the baiting that goes on here; no one has mentioned the fact that supporters of Eric are said to be biased, and yet opposers of him (one in particular to my mind) have clashed with him in the past, and use equally aggressive descriptions of behaviour, and that these seem to go by uncommented on. In short, it seems to me that all sides here need their heads banging together and told to go away and contribute content instead of engaging in this tedious mental diminishment of their faculties. The only tangible evidence of a person being driven away that I can see is an admin throwing in the towel, and you can work out why.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. He knew exactly what he was doing. You don't call someone an "asshole" if you don't know what it means. Come back to reality. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A hole for a donkey's what? Somehow that's a more felicitous personal attack? As for the normative rule, see WP:NPA Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But we have seen examples of personal attacks that go unpunished, but as soon as there is a hint that one has been committed by this editor, all hell breaks loose, and we have people almost gleefully baiting him on his talk page, and nothing happens to them! *This* inconsistency that makes a mockery of the WP:NPA rule. As for WP:NPA, the issue I am trying to make is that first you have to decide if it was a personal attack that went over some threshold (because there clearly as personal attacks that result in no action, so you cannot deny that there is a threshold, even if it is not stated), and that depends partly on the intention of the user. I might say to Eric "Hello, you old bugger!" and some might say that was an outrageous personal attack because it states he is a person who commits buggery, but it could be quite mild. Be careful you do not build in your own cultural biases into a rule that is supposed to apply to an international enterprise. In fact, George Orwell in his introduction to 1984 makes a quite valid point about swearing that can be applied here: a word or phrase is only a swear word if the intention for it to be one was there. I submit that Eric is merely indulging in what we in the UK would call "robust debate", that, despite what others seem to state, *does* happen in extremely formal scientific and other debates in the UK, and for which, if someone bitterly complained, one would often get the response "Grow up and get a set of balls". I think this issue with this editor is a conflation of a kind of robust debate that seems to be absent from USA academic circles, and which has been uncritically removed from WP:NPA, and a set of baiters who behaviour can sometimes seem to be that they are straining at the leash to do something against this editor.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be cross-cultural, then you have to be cross-cultural -- that means you don't call the other person, asshole. Simple enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It is not as black and white as you describe it.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is not particularly informative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you may have liked to ponder my counter-claim to see if you could see why what you wrote was an over-simplification, especially since I have made the points at least once in my other messages on this subject. It is not as black and white because there are grey areas that are manifested in apparently inconsistent treatment of questionable writings: some editors and administrators can "get away" with being quite insulting, and nothing happens, but in others it does. Some, for example, can go and bait Eric on his talk page, but nothing happens to them, So, something else affects these decisions. Secondly, there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes the areas on which questionable writings can be held to account (I believe there is an Arbitration matter as we speak about this). Thirdly, what is viewed as a personal attack by some is not viewed as such by others, so there is a grey area that is apparently swept aside by dictat in the rules, and also, two people may be communicating as in the "You old Bugger" type of conversation, where neither of them think an attack has happened, but some other person viewing this would say there has been. These may have bases in individuals or be differences in culture and languages. So, the rule appears to give a black-and-white solution, but in reality, there remain some, perhaps many, grey areas. That is what I meant. Most of this is explicit or clearly implicit in what I have already written.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

See, we have had this back and forth going and neither one of us has attacked the other's person. We have not called each other names. We have not said 'you are/' Why is that? Because it can be done. As for uneven enforcement: so? We are still each responsible for ourselves. As for differences of opinion, well that's not a shock in any group, but we still have to handle them with aplomb. As for what is a personal attack, when you call a stranger some name with a body part and animal and a hole in it -- that, there is little disagreement, is a personal attack. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That was just one small part of it. I see you have not commented on the other parts, yet you condemn it all. If I used the word "fanny" in the UK, it would have a quite different interpretation than if an American used it in the USA. I am merely pointing out that one should not impose one's own country's notions of what is acceptable upon people who come from a different country and different culture in a knee-jerk manner. If you say "I could care less", it is rather incomprehensible to the UK person unless they have come across this before, they would say "I couldn't care less". "Asshole" is actually very mild, and could be said to be equal in severity to calling someone's contributions "ridiculous", for example, in some countries. Or may be even equal in severity to alluding that I am not in "reality" in the points I was trying to make.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm British, and I thought Eric's comments were inappropriate. This is nothing to do with cultural imperialism and I'm tired of people defaulting to arguing that it is. Ironholds (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not Eric's first "asshole," so to speak. It's happened before, so he's aware of what the word means and how it's taken. Dayewalker (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I admit I'm onto a loser with the asshole thing, but I did say it was a bit ridiculous, put there to say that there are cultural and national differences that can be involved, and that it goes through to understanding the type of normative dialogue that is acceptable in certain contexts. Some things that would be outrageous to a USA person's ears would not be so to a UK person's ears (I know this in more detail with respect to UK English and Chinese differences). For example, I really do take the claim that I should return to "reality" because the person who made that evaluation of my contributions disagreed with me quite insulting, because it belittles the thought I did put into what I wrote. If I complained about it, I would be told (perhaps politely) to "go away and grow a set of balls". All I am saying is that there seem to be hair-trigger with some editord, and not with others. The person who went a baited Eric on his talk page should have been subject to an immediate block for that, for example,, but nothing happened, and it is that which is bringing WP:NPA and wikipedia into disrepute. We can do without such trouble-making contributions, because it unleashes a "shitstorm" (this last word is quite acceptable in Germany, as a recent BBC news item reported, but I wonder how many here would view it as completely unacceptable?).  DDStretch  (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Baiting? Don't take the bait. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But equally well, do not do any baiting. A non-even-handed approach is almost guaranteed to bring the whole process into disrepute.There may be some who are quite expert at baiting people and getting away with it (one might even call them "master baiters"), but what they are called is what they probably are.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)4

The baiter brings themselves into disrepute, but the baited then follows suit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A hole for a donkey is what? It’s very like a hole for a mouse. (Obviously bigger, being a hole for a whole donkey.) Ian Spackman (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 22 July 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Old MFD

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.

---

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Snowman_Guy/sandbox. Open since June 20, one !vote to delete, no contesting. Can someone close this already? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hello? Anyone home? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • given the number of pages I'd personally prefer a little more participation beforecontemplating closing that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

76.189.109.155 and drama

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.

---

76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

76 has been editing using this IP address since May 1, 2013. He has made many, many edits. Although I haven't looked at all of them, I would say his article edits are probably generally constructive. Outside of article edits, his behavior ranges from charming to obnoxious. Obviously, the reason I'm here is to find a way to eliminate - or at least drastically reduce - the obnoxious. Frankly, I think the only way to do it is through blocks, although I'm open to a creative topic ban that achieves the objective without blocks.

As is clear from his edits, 76 has edited here before May 1. Somewhere he acknowledged that - can't remember where, but I don't think he's hiding it anyway. I believe he claims he's only edited as an IP and has never had a registered account. I have no way of verifying that.

I believe I first became aware of his existence because of an incident in May that this ANI topic and this ANI topic partly reflect and that 76 turned into a major drama. Indeed, one of the reasons I am starting this topic is because of a new but related drama regarding 76's own talk page.

The crux of the problem are these dramas. User:Dennis Brown expressed it reasonably well with this comment: "Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are here. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering. I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Wikipedia seems to be drama." 76 does not take kindly to criticism and responded in part: "I suggest you keep your passive-aggressive (and inaccurate) insults to yourself."

The response to Dennis is a significant part of the problem. 76 likes discussing things with admins directly and on admin noticeboards. He kind of has two lists, those admins he likes (they agree with him or are at least nice to him) and those he doesn't. Admins swap back and forth on the lists depending on the most recent interaction between 76 and the admin. Currently, at least User:Bwilkins, User:Orangemike and Dennis are on the bad list. I've gone back and forth a number of times. I'm not sure where I am right now but if I'm not already on the bad list, I will be after I post this.

As for Bwilkins and Mike, 76 is currently pounding them to death on their talk pages. He's kind of like an aggressive, self-righteous lawyer cross-examining a witness to get them to admit something. Unfortunately, there's no Wikipedia judge to limit the examination.

The latest drama is the template {{dynamicip}}. User:Toddst1 added (re-added?) the template to 76's talk page. The IP removed it, and then there was a bit of a battle including my involvement. You can see discussions about it on my talk page and User:Jayron32's talk page. 76 questioned Todd about it, but Todd declined to discuss it and removed 76's comments. The last "compromise" suggestion by 76 was he would "permit" the template to remain on his talk page but not at the top of the page where these templates go because, says 76, policy doesn't require that it be on the top. I objected to that, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Last I looked, it was buried somewhere in the middle of the page, although he's been edit warring with various editors to keep it where he wants it.

These dramas are a continuing drain on resources. At some point they outweigh the positive contributions 76 makes, but even if 76 is not a net liability to the project, he needs to be reined in. Although I've included some links, I'm not going to hunt down all the dramas and all the examples of 76's shifting opinions about admins and editors. Whether I am or not, I have decided I am involved. Therefore, I can't take any administrative action against him, even for the latest edit warring on his talk page and his self-serving interpretation of policy.

I will notify 76 and some of the involved admins after I post this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these dramas from this problematic IP are a continued drain on our resources. I see more antipathy towards admins than anything else from this editor. I followed the invective on user talk: Bwilkins from this editor and recognized this editor from a similar fiasco in May. Since I haven't used any administrative privileges, I felt free to walk away from the conversation given the long history of drama-mongering from this IP. I think this editor should have been blocked long ago for persistent WP:Battle and WP:Wikilawyering during this editor's short tenure here at his/her current sticky dynamic IP address. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If 76.189.109.155 experiences such aversion to {{dynamicip}}, then I can propose to make another design of the dynamic IP notice, specially for him – if he likes it. But can I ask the community to ban 76.189.109.155 from user_talk:s of all users who experience an aversion to 76.189.109.155, of all who states that does not like him? I think it would be a reasonable compromise. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Compromise" necessarily indicates that all parties are getting something but not everything they want. This is not a compromise. Making special templates and requiring a great number of admin to avoid an IP editor that isn't interested in building articles is not a compromise, it is a burdensome capitulation to an editor that is offering nothing of value to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure I've run across them before except to post that one notice regarding their behavior, an administrative task. Should I be required to avoid problematic IPs? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that it's important for the decisions we have to make here, but you have interacted with 76 before now. For example, here (in a pleasant way) and here in a not-so-pleasant way with 76 taking potshots at User:Kudpung.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not propose you to avoid 76.189.109.155. And I do not propose to ban 76.189.109.155 from interaction with certain editors in all venues. I said only that I said: to ban 76.189.109.155 from starting his pointless lawyering at my user_talk, Toddst1’s one, Ymblanter’s one, and possibly of other users. It is the most disruptive his thing, according to my experience. I do not think that immediate ejecting of the editor without an intermediate stage of restrictions is a good policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll say nothing (the history on my talkpage - yes, I removed a couple of posts) and the bizarre discussion on Orangemike's talkpage pretty much say it all. However, I'll correct one thing: I actually the IP likes OrangeMike ... after all, the IP claims I threw OM under the bus yesterday, and won't drop the sharp, pointy thing even when proven otherwise. Do with him what you will, but at least do something ... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"at least do something... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill" +1 Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In view of the continued edit warring. WP:3RR has certainly been exceeded. I B Wright (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• My quoted statement already presents my perspective. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but it has been disruptive. Users whose primary purpose is to be a social gadfly are not really here to build an encyclopedia, they are here for....something else, which I have no idea. I think poking the admin from time to time is probably a very beneficial thing, we are and should be fully accountable, but being a self-righteous and self-appointed full-time wikilawyer (particularly when your understanding of policy is dubious, at best) goes way beyond the role of "loyal opposition" and enters the realm of trolling. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It has to be said that due to recent problems with IP editors, I have modified my view as to whether such editors should be permitted to edit in Wikipedia. But the people who have the power to decide these things have decided that they are acceptable and I have to respect that. However, it has to be said that this is the first time that I have come across an IP editor who is going out of his way to elicit an editing block. Maybe, it's some sort of rite of passage. I B Wright (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to all the admins I offended, especially the ones I really like. Especially Bbb23, who's a great guy. Let me make this simple. I'm upset because of the very disrepectul way OrangeMike was treated with regard to this ANI discussion. Please read my comments there. Mike was taken to ANI regarding a block, but no one ever even had a conversation with him first to try and resolve it. Yes, I was passionate there. Sometimes too passionate. But there were few defending him, until some wonderful admins - Bbb23, DGG and The Bushranger - came along and balanced the scales a bit. Because of my participation there, my reputation took an immediate hit, which I knew was likely to happen because I was the only IP participating. But I felt so terrible for Mike that I didn't care. So I'm not in the best mood because of that situation. And then, to top it off, Toddst1, with whom I had a little skirmish with about six weeks ago, came to my talk page an re-added the shared IP template that hadn't been there in all that time. He claimed I removed it improperly, but I explained to him that WP:BLANKING did not exclude it from being removed at the time I removed it in May. It wasn't until 16 days later, that Todd himself added (or readded) that exclusion to WP:BLANKING. So I went to his page to discuss it and asked Jayron32 if he would be a neutral mediator. I even said I was fine with having the template if it's required; my understanding through a long Village Pump discussion a few weeks ago was that the IP template was not something that would be enforced. In any case, I told Bbb that I'd be fine with having the template but said I'd like to put it lower on the page since there are no rules that say it must be displayed at the top of the page. Finally, I'd ask that some admins please look at my talk page history over the past hour or so and review the flood of edits by I B Wright and 155blue. I would respectfully ask that an admin educate them on that type of editing. Again, I'm sorry to the admins I annoyed and offended. And no, Bbb, you're not on my "bad list". :) I think most of the admins I've dealt with are great, actually. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you have a "bad list" as you refer to it. That's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Can someone please put forward a proposed sanction for community ratification? Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Todd, there is no bad list. That was a term used solely by Bbb. So I was simply alluding it to it in my comment, to let him know he's not on this "bad list" he talked about. ;) And I sort of thought it was funny. I've never even used the terms good and bad lists. That's apparently just Bbb's way of describing his perception of how I see things. But you can ask him about that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me agred with BBB that you appear to have a "bad list." Beyond that you persist in classic WP:BATTLE behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I understand how it can appear that way. Hey, we all have editors we like and don't like. That's nothing new. But there's no good and bad list. Haha. I actually liked Triple B's description of that, though. It made me laugh the first time he used it. That's because initially, he and I didn't get along, and then we became pretty good friends on here. And I really respect him. So the good/bad thing was all his creation; I can't take any credit for it. The only problem is that some people thought he meant if literally. ;) But yeah, like all other editors, we have people we like more than others. That's life. That's Wikipedia. I'm sure I'm on your "bad editors" list, right? Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1

proposal closed for improvement - see Proposal 2 below

Given this IP's long pattern of acrimony and WP:BATTLE the editor currently editing at 76.189.109.155 is restricted from participating in discussions at noticeboards, may not blank his/her talk for 6 months. This restriction will persist if the user changes IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC) I think the ban should be broader than the proposal but perhaps shorter in duration. There are two problem areas this proposal does not address, the harassment at user talk pages (obvious) and the problems in Wikipedia space other than at noticeboards (e.g., long protracted comments wanting to change WP:BLANKING). A more reasonable duration would probably be three months. Also, an exception to the noticeboard restriction would have to exist where 76 is clearly the subject of the discussion. BTW, I'm fairly certain that 76 has stated that he is male.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) How much more drama do you want here? I apologized sincerely and I meant it. Do you want a pound of my flesh? Are you trying to punish me or prevent something? Please let's not forget I have thousands of edits. I don't know how many. Maybe 2000, 3000. I have edited a lot of articles and participated in a lot of article discusssions. I tried to keep this simple. I was upset about Mike's treatment and I vented. I'm sorry about that. And I don't get this whole 1RR issue. The only revert issue is on my own talk page regarding this issue of whether the IP template has to go at the top or not. That's it. If there's a policy that says that, just show me and then we'll put the template at the top. Right now, it's on my page but just not at the top. So it's there and people can see it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC) And Todd, I have every right to blank my talk page as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLANKING. Let's just settle the issue of whether it has to go at the top or not. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) And why should I be restricted from noticeboards? Bbb23 said himself that I didn't cross any lines worth being blocked; just that I should tone it down. I will do that if I choose to participate at those boards. But honestly, I don't really like them. I was just passionate about that ANI because of the issue with Mike. So please stop all the attempts to be punitive here over issues that don't apply. I was rude to some admins on their talk pages and I feel bad about it. And it won't happen again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC) We're discussing taking away your privileges here because of your abuse. You have no rights, only privileges. That is why. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring/talk page issues

It's not just the admins that you have offended, your reasons for reverting edits which include "...stay the f[***] off of my talk page" are uncivil and have been offensive. If a welcome message is considered vandalism and moving an object to its proper place is disruptive editing, then what is right to do? In addition, it would be polite to notify me on my talk page the next that you mention me here.155blue (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

155blue, based on the numerous edits you made on my talk page, you apparently do not understand, or not aware of, WP:BLANKING, or the difference between a warning and a template. When someone asks you nicely to stay off their talk page and you come back and back and back and back, that's a big problem. The only way to get the message through to you was to be more assertive. And it worked. After I said, "i told you several times to stay the fuck off my talk page", you didn't return. ;) And as my history will show, I almost never use language like that. But I've never seen editors flooding someones talk page non-stop, like you and IB Wright did. And btw, you added an IP template to my page when there was one already there. In the future, when there is a contentious issue happening, you should let an admin handle it. But the last thing you should do is keep going back to someone's talk page when they ask you not to. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In WP:BLANKING it states and I quote:

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction

Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress)

Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).

For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address.

{{Noindex}} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect. (see below)"

(emphasis added)

As the shared IP notice has to be placed at the top of the page, I fully understand what you can and cannot delete.155blue (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

155blue, most of the rest of us are fully aware of what WP:BLANKING says, so there was no need to paste the entire policy here. And I gave it to you, remember? Apparently, you weren't aware of them because you put an edit summary that said "this warning needs to be kept". Obviously, warnings do not need to be kept. And there is nothing in WP:BLANKING that says the IP template must be displayed at the top of the page, which is one of the issues at hand. So please, will you allow the admins to discuss this with me? You're really not helping matters. Thank you. And btw, when you bold quoted material that isn't bolded in the source, you need to indicate that you did that by putting "(emphasis added)" at the end. The IP templates line is not bolded in the source material. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And despite the assertions made above, I too fully understand what our IP editor can and cannot delete. The above policy is quite clear, in my view. I B Wright (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

IB, please back away from this discussion and let the admins handle it. You flooded my talk page with edits and reverts - around 10 I believe - and easily surpassed the edit-warring limit. But edit-warring on someone else's talk page doesn't necessarily require even four reverts to violate the policy. And the part you're apparently not aware of is that reverting edits on one's own talk page (or user page) is exempt from 3RR (as long as it violates the TP guidlines). See WP:NOT3RR. So when you ignored my repeated requests to stay off my talk page and posted this comment that says, "And you have now exceeded WP:3RR so a block in now guaranteed", you obviously didn't know what you were talking about. Actually, it was you who violated 3RR. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor who cannot count. I only made seven (7) edits, and one of those was to remove a comment that somehow posted twice. At no time did I revert anything more than three times, so that makes you a liar. I may have reverted two different edits three times but that is not 3RR. I B Wright (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." - I don't think it's an issue in this case, but just so you know...It doesn't matter if they are different edits. --Onorem (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

76, it is self-evident that you violated Wikipedia's civility rules by saying my edits were "incompetent," and by saying "stay the f[***] off my talk page." You also violated the 3-revert rule by reverting so many edits, despite the good faith that you had in them. I stopped not because of your foul language but because of that rule that you seem to be fully oblivious to. At the third revert, I stopped and instead put a template on your page welcoming you to the wiki. By looking here you can see this. Also, I did signify that the bold was added by putting down "(bold added)". The issue was corrected at this edit by changing "bold added" to "emphasis added." Despite that, you dragged me into the debate on this page and I refuse to let you silence me. If you directly accuse me of anything, I will respond.155blue (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again 155, you simply don't understand the 3RR and NOT3RR guidlelines. Both you and IB Wright were in violation of 3RR for your flood of edits on my talk page. So read the relevant policies and move on. And this is what's being referred to when one alludes to the concept of competence in editing. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• This behavioural guideline surrounding the Shared IP Notice is key, and since 76.* seems to feel they have been around AN/ANI long enough to make comments, they'll also know well that it's treated by the community as a policy, and is enforced by administrators when it becomes problematic... just like WP:SIG, and many others. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't object to the template. I've stated that several times. But there is no rule that says it must be displayed at the top of the page. It's on my page now, just not at the top. So what's the problem? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

But as you well know, there was an extremely lengthy debate at Village Pump several weeks ago about the exclusions. And at that time, the IP template exclusion was not on there. It was added/readded by Toddst1 two weeks later. So no one is debating that it's on the list now; the only issue whether there is a requirement or not for it to be displayed at the top of the page. Simple. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

These threads reinforce my concerns. This drama has a parasitic effect, consuming the time of others without bestowing any benefit to them or to the encyclopedia. Sweet words or no, you have become a time vampire. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want, Dennis? Should I chop a limb off? I said I'm sorry for being rude. And I meant it. I honestly don't care if I get banned or not if that will make everyone feel better. But either way, I regret the way I vented at people. But I don't regret standing up for Mike. I felt terrible for him. So let's just settle the matter of whether the template is required to go at the top or not. Or do you just want me to stop editing altogether? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• To answer your question, what I want is an epiphany. Short of that, a clear understanding and path forward. I am getting the distinct feeling above that I'm being told what you think I want to hear, while you later debate the minutia template placement. The placement of that template is not the issue here and I can't remember having to debate one with an IP before. It shouldn't be an issue to begin with, and it is no more than a distraction. You do care if you get "banned" or you wouldn't be here. What I want is honesty, an understanding, and less drama, which is no different than I want from anyone else. It isn't complicated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you feel terrible about Mike? Did he ask you to come to his aid? Do you suffer from White Knight Syndrome? The thread was about "reminding an admin about WP:BITE" ... nobody was going to lose their sysop status, or even get their pee-pee slapped. You continually butted your nose in, even when explained the history - my colleague OrangeMike knows full well how to take care of himself, as was evidenced when he finally did post in that thread. After all, he's been in the same predicament before, and is well-aware of his defence tactics. The template stays at the top so that nobody has to go around to find it and re-adding it when they do not see it at the top. As it's a shared IP, it's not your talkpage - it's the talkpage of whoever uses that address, and next week it might not be you, so logically it needs to be left at the standard. Finally, since you spent the better part of this day refusing to read, and refusing to drop the stick, you are indeed a detriment to this project at this - you wasted hours of my time and others because you couldn't take advice. You should indeed be banned until such a time as you're willing to drop the WP:BATTLE and maybe actually apologize to the people you've been fecking with all day(✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Why do you love your mom? Do you suffer from family-ties syndrom? People generally cannot control the way they feel and if he felt bad for Mike, he likely perceived something about the situation that he can't articulate in a way that is understandable to others. Feelings are not always rationale and asking why someone feels the way they do is an asinine question. No one wasted your hours. You volunteered them giving the advice.--v/r - TP 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've resisted responding to your comments, TP, only because I'm not a big fan of threaded comments after a vote. But I think you're being a bit unfair in your response to Bwilkins. People may not be able to control how they feel, but they can control how they act based on their feelings. 76's problem isn't how he feels. 76's problem is his conduct based on those feelings. Defending someone (just as I'm doing for Bwilkins) is often a commendable thing, and it doesn't bother me that 76 defends editors. The problem is that he goes on and on and on. It reminds me of an I Love Lucy episode (everything reminds me of I Love Lucy episodes :-) ). Ethel defended Lucy against threats by Mrs. Trumbull. Afterward, Ethel went around telling everyone the story of her noble defense until Lucy lost her temper. That caused a big fight between the two friends. Ricky and Fred tried to mediate with their respective wives. And when Ethel was arguing her side to Fred, he said something like, "I know, I know, you've told me, you've told me." Put in the Wikipedia context, we're all familiar with the WP:IDHT syndrome. When an editor keeps saying the same thing over and over and over, that repetition causes drama to no beneficial objective and a waste of resources. In 76's case, it went beyond just the defense of editors. It delved into policies and guidelines and complaints to administrative noticeboards. Anyway, I'm not expecting you to change your mind; I'm just defending poor defenseless Bwilkins (ha!) and trying to shed a little more light on some of the bases for those of us who support a ban. I'll shut up now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The day Bwilkins is rendered defenseless, we're screwed.--v/r - TP 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Given this IP's long pattern of acrimony, WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYERING, WP:Harassment and drama, the editor currently editing at 76.189.109.155 is restricted from:

1. participating in discussions at noticeboards unless he is the subject of the discussion
2. participating in discussions and/or changes to policies, essays and/or guidelines
3. harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed)
4. removing from or moving anything on his/her talk page

This sanction will be in effect for 3 months. This restriction will persist if the user changes IPs or registers as a user. Any violations of these conditions will result in an immediate block and an extension of this sanction.

Please comment below as to whether you support or oppose this sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the addition that the Shared IP template stays at the top where it's supposed to be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and goodbye I feel terrible about lashing out at the various admins because of my frustration about the OrangeMike situation. I've already given heartfelt apology here more than once. But apparently, that and my history of two to three thousand edits, isn't enough. So I will not be editing any more. Regarding the template, it's not an issue any more. It's the only thing on my talk page now. All the best to all of you. And, again, I'm sorry to anyone I was rude to. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposed sanctions are outrageously inappropriate, unwarranted, and inapplicable. And there is virtually no evidence (diffs) to back up all of the generic allegations that have been strategically lumped together as one. I could have said some things in a friendlier way, but overall, I crossed no lines and I stand by the general points I made. If I were a registered user and not an IP, I don't think we'd even be here. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is a much better proposal than Todd's first attempt (thanks for listening and doing the hard work). I particularly like the fact that a ban avoids blocking 76 as I still think he can be an asset when he's focusing on article content. I know he has said he's leaving, but people have, of course, been known to change their minds about that sort of thing (retired, unretired, etc.), so formalizing the ban is still a good idea. Two small points about the ban. First, the fourth restriction should be eliminated if 76 creates a registered account before the ban expires as it would no longer be necessary (existing policy would be good enough). Second, a very small point: "user or admin" should be just user - last time I heard admins are users, too. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support A diva exit is not a reason to discontinue the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I commend Bbb23 for raising this issue in such a calm, articulate way. Unfortunately, 76.189.109.155 has indeed proven to be a drain on resources, with their repetitive, antagonistic notice board and talk page posts. My only concern with this proposal, is that after three months, the user may return to the same behavior. I hope that instead they will focus on actually building the encyclopedia without the needless drama. There are many thousands of articles that can benefit from editing without ever touching a talk page. - MrX 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Although I’m not a sysop, I express the full support for 1, 2, 3. Though, I think that 4 came too late, because 76.189.109.155 persistently refactored his user_talk in order to form and keep his social image (contrary to the prescribed use of the user_talk as an interaction device), expunging all remarks which showed him in a negative or otherwise undesired (for him) context, so… it just does not have much sense now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Whilst I appreciate that the purpose of this is to encourage an editor to edit in as co-operative a manner as possible, this particular method is not usually successful. On every previous occasion that I have seen it tried, the result is usually the same. A set of restrictions is placed on some disruptive editor. For a few days, said editor abides by the terms of the restrictions. After four or five days, a test edit is made that is outside of the restrictions. When nothing is done about it, then after a week or so, it's business as usual and the whole cycle starts again. I B Wright (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  The problem with 76.189.… is not about cooperation. It is about clueless lawyering and chatting/flooding attitude at discussion pages that went unabated for several months, i.e. about his use of the discussion mechanism for aims that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Now, when restrictions are going to be established, I’ll just apply my rollback if I encountered any 76.189.…’s loathsome social-networking stuff. Then, he will either start an edit war that leads to blocking, or will unable to continue with his previous behaviour. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure 76 is the problem I first thought. Not sure. Yesterday, I listed a bunch of IPs in his neighbourhood who've been editing over the last 12 months (archived here). There appears to be two regular editors using that range but I haven't teased them apart. I've had a bit of a look, and haven't found anything any more disruptive than I see happening here all day every day from a lot of editors in good standing, such as myself, Carrite, Charmlet, Orangemike, Demiurge, etc. and there seems to be plenty of constructive editing happening. That's how it seems after a superficial scan.

I initially extended the usual level of distrust and contempt that I do to IPs who dare to oppose me, but I'm wondering now if I've been too harsh and hasty. As I say, I don't know yet, because I haven't reviewed the editor's work properly - and I don't have time today - but I just wanted to pop this here and register my concern. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If "Drama" is all the subject is accused of, everyone on AN and ANI could likewise face the same sanction. We don't sanctionfor participating in drama, we sanctionfor causing it. It has not been demonstrated that the IP causes the drama. The chief complaint appears to be "IP points out people's fallacies and it's a bit annoying" to paraphrase (sorry Bbb23). 155Blue's complaint is even more benign. "stay the f[***] off of my talk page" is routinely used and I could probably use it as a search term on ANI and pull up half a thousand results where it was said that it is not a personal attack to use curse words when telling someone to go away. It is only a personal attack when describing the user. Further, the "incompetent" remark is again benign. We routinely call people incompetent, we have an essay for it. So, what do we have? We have an IP who is more experienced than the average IP, a regular, knowledgeable, and vocal. If he had an account, we'd give him a barnstar for his insights. Not really sanctionable material here. You could sanctionme on the same grounds.--v/r - TP 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Further, I don't see a "bad boy list" from this IP. Vernacular was introduced by another user, the IP picked it up for simplicity sake, and now it's being turned around on him as if it was his own. A thought was injected into his mind and now he's being blamed for it. This thread should just dissipate and the IP should be strongly recommended to register an account for his own sake to avoid headaches like this.--v/r - TP 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  And also, I don't think the IP even has a nice and bad list. He calls it like he sees it and doesn't avoid crossing friend-boundaries. You can like a person and disagree with them, as I've just done with most of you, and this guy does just that. You can also speak on behalf of people you don't like, as the IP may have been doing with OrangeMike. You can't judge a person's feelings about others based on single instances of what they do and likewise you can't judge people on how their mind sees different perspectives. This guy doesn't seem like a deliberate troll. He seems to me that he's insightful and vocal. I don't consider myself an apologist, but there are no other factor's in this IP's behavior other than they are an IP and IPs carry a stereotype. If there was trolling actions, such as comissioning a painting of Jimbo with an unusual body part for painting, then okay. But the actions demonstrated (by 155blue) are not outside the ordinary of registered accounts.--v/r - TP 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Account or not is not important: 76.189.… has certain easily recognizable patterns (I do not specify them for an obvious reason) which will assure his identification from an account, from an IP of another ISP, or wherever. What insights are you speaking about, indeed? Thousands people improve English Wikipedia, not excluding discussion pages, with actually useful insights. Most of them are not grasping for a special attention, do not ask for special preferences or protection. Of course, any active editor has conflicts, and many editors sometimes (or permanently) are rude, and sometimes drain resources of other editors. They intend to do useful things, not just to make an edit once in two or three minutes to express themselves. They have conflicts because they build the encyclopedia, not make several edits in the article space just to provide a possibility to engage in lawyering without an immediate ejection from the site. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  There is a bias against non-conformist insights here. "Useful insights"? What a fucking piece of crap that thought was. It's only useful if you deem it so because it conforms to your point of view and it's not useful if you don't want to hear it. Tell me, Incnis Mrsi, are my comments "useful insights"?--v/r - TP 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  I have an impression that you primarily demonstrate your non-conformity, not try to investigate the concrete case. I am sure 76.189.109.155 has a handful of really useful (and not completely trivial) edits, and if something has to be said in his defence, then it would be his minor- or medium-valued improvements to some (few) articles. His entire metapedian activity is wrong, clueless in its goals, and demonstrably disruptive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Demonstratably disruptive has not been demonstrated...at all period dot. To be clear: this entire thread contains exactly 2 diffs of 76.189's behavior, by 155Blue, and I've addressed them both as well below the bar for account holders and even IP editors. So demonstrate it or shut up. What you're doing is making accusations but you've failed to prove them. Everyone in this thread should face the sanctions except for the IP for making personal attacks without diffs. And for your record, I call it like I see it. Not to be non-conformist, not to be different, but to be from my perspective. Just about everyone in this thread, with the exception of you and the IP, has seen me agree or disagree with them or the group at one point or another.--v/r - TP 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Point taken… I will not excavate the worst 76.189.109.155 for TParis, but will show a typical 76.189.109.155, namely two threads full of him at other user’s user_talk, and a part of his persistent efforts on maintaining his own user_talk. If it is a good metapedianism for you, then… sorry, we are in opposite camps, seriously. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  For 7000 edits and global rollback, I'd think you know the difference between a diff and a link. But since you brought it up, 76.189 brought a case of a personal attack to Toddst1's attention with a rather nice template. Toddst1 responded to it with more personal attacks and you blame the IP. Go figure. Your second "diff" was you creating a waring about "defacing" an editors talk page for adding an ANI notice. I call that baiting and provocation. All in all, you've got an IP that removes posts from an IP talk page, for which I haven't seen a guideline against, people calling him a troll, him feeling that folks are being passive aggressive...I'm sorry, what exactly am I looking for? This is why I asked for diffs. Show me exactly whats wrong and exactly what policy you think it violates. You've got zilch. I'm even more convinced of that now with your two links.--v/r - TP 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  “"defacing" an editors talk page for adding an ANI notice”… what a rubbish do you talking here? Could you attentively read the relevant diff? BTW, I have about 21,000 edits across the Empire, although it is not relevant to our question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  What exactly do you want me to see in that diff? It was an ANI notice when I responded to you a minute ago and it's still an ANI notice after I clicked on it now. What exactly is the defacement?--v/r - TP 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  If TParis thinks that defacing a User: page is an appropriate means to “notify a user”, and refers to my reaction to it as to “baiting and provocation”, then it is not surprising that the same TParis feels that the entire history of flooding of numerous pages with eloquences, of cleansing the own user_talk: from “bad” comments, of lawyering, of distracting multiple users on hundreds of petty pretexts, and of other forms of grasping for attention are legitimate contributions to Wikipedia. Anyway, I’m happy to see that the majority of administration tries to prevent slipping Wikipedia into a social network infested with babblers and vanity mongers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  TParis, now that Incnis Mrsi has told you his version of the story, here's what actually happened. And, unlike Incnis, I'll show you all of the relevant diffs to prove it. What happened was that I accidentally clicked on the "User page" tab instead of the "Talk" tab. Period. And for that honest mistake, I received this hostile warning from Incnis, condescendingly telling me that I "defaced" the edtior's page. I quickly responded, explaining my error. I actually felt embarassed when I found out I did that because it was such an absent-minded mistake that I'd never done before (or since). Then I of course added the template to the editor's talk page right away, and included a comment to let him know what I had done and to apologize for accidentally putting it on his user page. Btw, the defacing claim didn't even make sense to me; if that's what someone did to vandalize someone's user page, it would be the weakest (and most ineffective) attempt at vandalism I've ever seen. And do editors who purposesly vandalize ever fix it and apologize for it? But the disturbing part about this now is that Incnis fully knows what happened, was educated and reamed by admin Drmies about it, and yet Incnis still chose to come here tonight to try and convince you that I had done something malicious. I don't like seeing editors get sanctioned unless they really deserve it, but blatant, out-of-context lies like this to make another look terrible really deserves consequences. Especially when the target is already under major fire at a noticeboard like this. Now hopefully you and others will understand why Incnis so enthusiastically supports the proposed sanctions here? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  I expressed my views about then-observed 76.189.…’s attitudes some time ago. By the time it was only a minority view. But 76.189.…’s attitude did not improve for more than a month (although at some moments of time I supposed that it does improve) and now it is a plurality view. It is our site, of the people who build the encyclopedia. Have a nice day, I now part to make useful edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it does tend to happen that way. When you're aggressive towards other users and call their edits defacement, their temperment toward you seems to not improve. That's a given.--v/r - TP 13:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support IP has been a waste of time long enough. I saw his drama mongering for what it was 7 weeks ago. I mentioned before that the IPs goal is to stir the pot, look for reasons to harass and wikilawyer. Bluntly, there is every reason to believe the IP is just a previously banned editor. Article improvement isn't significant enough to justify having to put up wit the rest of the trolling nonsense.--MONGO 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  "goal is to stir the pot, look for reasons to harass and wikilawyer" That's often said about people who say things we don't want to hear.--v/r - TP 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  @TP: Your blanket dismissal of your fellow editors' valid concerns is less than compelling, and your attempts to cast shame on the folks commenting here is beneath you. If you're having a bad day, may I suggest stepping away from this for a while, and perhaps coming back later with a clearer perspective? - MrX 18:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  I've had a rather good day, actually. I'm not upset at MONGO, I just disagree with that point is all.--v/r - TP 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry. I think my threading confused the issue. I was referring to your prior posts here, here and here. - MrX 19:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think I need to click those to know which you're referring to, but my answer is that I have a clear head at the moment. I'm happily plugging award in Autodesk 3ds Max 2013 working on some animations and replying during my renders. Nothing bad about the day that could be causing me to react others than as I intend. The only thing that has bothered me are Incnis Mrsi's comments.--v/r - TP 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose specifically for point 3 which states that the user is restricted from harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed). It's supposed to be unacceptable for anyone to do this at any time. It getting a bit ridiculous if we have to start spelling out "you're now banned from being mean". Taroaldo ✉ 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• (breaking my "rule"). It's rare for an editor to be blocked for incivility. However, when incivility is built into a ban and the editor is uncivil, the result is usually a block for violating the ban. You, of course, are still free to oppose the ban for whatever reason, but I thought it might be useful to address your point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Which points to a larger issue at Wikipedia, which is the lax attitude toward chronic incivility. Many decent editors reduce or stop their involvement in the project because of a small number of [uncivil word] people who make it continually unpleasant to volunteer here. Perhaps if it were less rare to get blocked for incivility more people would stick around.

Thank you for explaining the technical reasoning behind the wording -- given the way the process is structured, it makes sense. Taroaldo ✉ 02:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• So aren't you throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater here? Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per TP. There are many accusations of misbehavior by the IP but only two diffs have been advanced to substantiate these claims. Nor do the two diffs constitute convincing grounds for sanctions.Tristan noir (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. 76's "goodbye" didn't last long. 155blue had filed a report at ANEW against 76. I declined it. Now 76, not to be outdone, filed a report against I B Wright, as well as commenting on my decline. I've declined 76's report as well. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - First, I sincerely want to thank Taroaldo, Tristan noar, and especial TP, for expressing their opposition to the proposed sanctions. It means a lot to me that you would stand up to a strong crowd who supports them. Having said that, I still will not be editing any more, as I said above, particularly based on the handling of this matter. But I felt the obligation to address these existing matters because for me, this is about my reputation, not my editing.

  I'm sorry, but the way this matter has been handled by Bbb23, Bwilkins, Toddst1, and Dennis Brown is extremely disturbing. Interestingly, they happen to be the four editors I offended on their talk pages. So my alleged "victims" are apparently also trying to be my executioners. The way the rushed into creating these unwarranted and inapplicable sanctions. Look at how quickly they got to the proposals and voting, even after I sincerely apologized (for my tone, not my messages). The way they handled this discussion is equivalent to a kangaroo court. They provide practically no evidence (diffs) to support their generic, out-of-context, and exaggerated allegations, nor do they show that anything they're alleging warrants any sanctions, let alone these very harsh ones. I won't even get into all the baseless rhetoric presented by numerous editors. Nor the complete disregard for my numerous apologies, which I meant and still mean. It's rather remarkable that the four admins, and others, are lumping all of their generic complaints into one big issue, rather thing addressing individual allegations and providing diffs to support each of them.

  Regarding their four proposed santions, they're almost too outrageous to even believe. (1) Banning me from noticeboards for months because some editors don't like my passion in discussions even though I've never violated any polices (although I admit I tend to repeat myself too much at times). Where are the diffs to prove I'm "out of line" on noticeboards and deserve to be banned from them? (2) Banning me from discussions about policies, essays and guidelines. Again, please provide diffs to show evidence of why I should not be allowed to post in any of those. (3) Banned from "being uncivil" to anyone. Could there be any sanction more outrageous than that one? Seriously? If this particular sanction had already applied to everyone, all four of the admins leading this effort to banish me would've been blocked numerous times, not to mention at least 80% of Wikipedia's other editors. That sanction alone is probably the best evidence of how off the rails this vigorous attempt to punish me has become. (4) Banning me from removing anything from my talk page. This one is almost as outrageous as #3. So no matter what I, or someone else, puts on my talk page, I would not be allowed to remove it? Again... seriously?

  It should also be noted that although I expressed my sincere concerns about two editors (I B Wright and 155blue) who edit warred on my talk page for heaven's sake, and I asked for the admins here to please address it, they completely ignored me. In fact, amazingly, Toddst1 went to the talk page of I B Wright and instead of telling them they were edit warring at my talk page, he simply informed the editor of this AN. Then 155blue commented in that thread and asked if they had to stop editing my talk page. Instead of saying, "Yes, you both are edit warring!", Bbb23 merely tells them to stop editing on my talk page "at least for the time being", until the AN is done. That of course was equivalent to saying that they did nothing wrong and, hey, you may even be able to go back and edit the user's talk page again if we're successful in sanctioning the IP at AN.

  The perplexing behavior didn't stop there. 155blue files this report at the edit warring noticeboard about me. You will see Pburka's response to 155blue, which is very telling. You will also see that Bbb23 himself declined it, but instead of saying I didn't edit war, he simply said it's being handled at AN. You will also see my reply to Bbb. And since none of the four admins would address or even acknowledge my request to talk to the two editors about their edit warring on my talk page, I filed this report at AN/EW about I B Wright, who reverted on my talk page five times in an hour. I didn't want to, but clearly the four admins I asked for help on this weren't going to do anything about it.

  After sleeping on this overnight last night, I still decided that I don't want to edit any more. But my wife and kids urged me to respond because they're very hurt by it. They're actually more upset than I am about how this discussion has been handled by the four admins. So I agreed. My wife read TP's various comments and was moved to tears by them. So for that TP, I thank you so much. Finally, I again apologize for the manner in which I expressed some of my comments to the four admins, but, overall, I stand by my points in them. Sadly, I honestly believe that if I were a registered account and not an IP editor, we wouldn't even be here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support the proposed sanctions. The above screed clearly indicates that 76.189.109.155 is either incapable of avoiding unnecessary drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling. If the IP wishes to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, the proposed measures do not prevent this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that Bbb23 of all people took it upon himself to decline my report at the edit warring noticeboard. The guy who started this AN against me and wants to ban my participation in four areas actually thought it was appropriate to throw out a legitimate edit warring report because it was me who posted it. So apparently Bbb23 thinks that other editors are immune from sanctions if their violations are against me. It's interesting that Bbb23 says my edit warring report against another editor should not be handled because I am being reported here. That makes absolutely no sense. There is not even an attempt here of determining if I'm guilty of edit warring - on my own talk page, no less! I would ask that a reasonable admin please address my report at the edit warring noticeboard and judge it on its own merits. I didn't want to report there, but I asked very nicely here for admins to please talk to the editor, but they ignored it.

  Finally, AndyTheGrump, I would suggest you take a good hard look at your own block log before you come to a discussion like this and support harsh sanctions for an editor and make hostile claims about me without providing any evidence to back it up. With your notorious background, that takes real guts. Obviously, you think I should not defend myself against these allegations. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Baiting and taking the bait, that's all.--v/r - TP 02:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...like I said, drama-mongering, or trolling. At this point, it really makes little difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Andy, you apparently need a reminder that will show why you should stop throwing stones.[137][138] Your reply to the indefinite block you received several months ago was very intriguing: "I no longer consider editing Wikipedia a 'privilege' - not while the gross hypocrisy concerning 'civility' continues. Make rude remarks about a Wikipedian, and ANI fills up with the pitchfork mob. Systematically slander entire communities...and fuck-all ever gets done about it. This stinks, and I no longer want to play any part in it." Pitchfork mob? Sounds very familiar. Look Andy, had you supported the sanctions and provided a civil, well-reasoned explanation, and included relevant diffs, I would have been fine with that. But instead, you come here and spout a bunch of rheotrical insults, and also exhibit total hypocricy. Honestly, with your background you really have no credibility in discussions like this. And I am not going to let your unprovoked attacks go unanswered. It's actually sad because I'd think that someone with your long history of incivility and problems with other editors would be much more understanding of what I'm dealing with here. And you don't have to worry, once this matter is resolved, I won't be editing any more. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "you don't have to worry, once this matter is resolved, I won't be editing any more". 76.189.109.155 has now stated that he no longer intends to edit Wikipedia in any constructive manner. I suspect at this point the simplest course of action would probably be an immediate block to prevent further drama. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Really? Show us the "in any constructive manner" part? Do you ever behave properly or are you always this hostile? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

An independent opinion: According to this, he has made one articlespace edit in the past three days out of (so far) 116. I call that not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, yet has illustrated a knack for disrupting the Wikipedia. Please exercise the harshest measures necessary.--Launchballer 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What a waste of time. Doc talk 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. Launchballer, actually it's been a little over two days (about 54 hours), not three days. Your own link shows that. In any case, once this AN and the matters surrounding it happened on Sunday, I chose to permanently stop editing articles and just deal with the existing issues before I stop editing altogether. I didn't realize that there was a minimum requirement for how much editing one must do in article space. Curiously, you failed to mention that I have probably around 2500 edits and many of them to article space and article talk pages, among others, to help improve articles. But if you want ignore my entire history and focus on just the past couple days - the time you know I've been dealing with this drama - then there's nothing I can do about that. You didn't provide any diffs that would show the "harshest measures possible" are warranted. Or any measures at all. I see that you returned a few months ago from an indefinite block given in 2009. I'd think you'd be more understanding of how important evidence is when you are accused of wrongdoing and being threatened with harsh sanctions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be loving all this attention. Doc talk 09:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, quite the opposite. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear ya. Doc talk 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer - People arn't allowed to take a break from editing during a highly stressful period where they are facing sanctions without any evidence and then we use their own reaction to these unfair accusations as further evidence against them? What a wonderful place this is.--v/r - TP 12:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the supporting arguments. Doc talk 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are none. Have you seen any diffs?--v/r - TP 12:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have, yes. Doc talk 04:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly, per TP (above and below). Writegeist (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: So a group of proles and admins trash an IP prole with whom they have a history of conflict; the prole stands up to them, vigorously defending himself and presenting comprehensive reviews and analysis of the opposing proles' and admins' modus operandi; which elicits more sneers and jeers, as if from playground bullies; Andy the Grump and assorted other bods pile on; and on and on and on, round and round it goes. An inspiring spectacle, and a fine example of how Wikipedia works! Bravo chaps! But TP, you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you gone rogue? Don't you know you moppets are supposed to close ranks when you're taking down a prole? For Heaven's sake man, get a grip on your esprit de corps des serpillères before it's too late. Writegeist (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as second choice. 'I know I quit, but my wife and kids urged me, and this looks like a good place for telling AndyTheGrump about his notorious background'? This guy's a hoot. I suggest a siteban. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC).

The "my wife and kids were upset by this" made me laugh. I'll bet he told them "I'm being picked on unfairly on Wikipedia" instead of "I behaved like a jerk to 3 respected admins AND some Bwilkins guy, and now they want to censure me". His complete inability to acknowledge his authorship of this situation is the whole problem here. Otherwise, my comments and concerns would be very different (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely you can see how Incnis' own behavior contributes to inflaming the situation. I'm not saying 76.189 is innocent, I don't think I ever have. What I am saying is that other factors, namely Incnis and 155blue, have done nothing but pour gallons of gasoline all over this situation and appears on the surface to be issues with the IP are in some cases merely poking the IP until he growls and then saying "Look look, see how vicious he is?"--v/r - TP 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of the IPs behavior on this very thread. (I'm also a bit bewildered by TParis's fervent championing of the IPs case, an instance of an otherwise good admin with a peculiar blind spot.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If this IP really intends to contribute to the encyclopedia, this would allow them to do so. Their behaviour in this discussion is way out of line; "Goodbye" four days ago yet still now huge walls of text and arguing left right and centre. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I have past experience of this IP's behaviour, and am sorry to see that, based the conduct described and demonstrated in this very thread, little or nothing has changed. I'd also like to thank Anthonyhcole for this list [139], which certainly shows evidence of similar battleground behaviour under past IP addresses from what is almost certainly this editor (note "haha" comments in particular). e.g. [140][141][142][143] Slp1 (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't know about Anthony's list. Thanks, Anthony, and thanks, Slp1, for highlighting it. Any small doubt I had about the need for a ban has been eliminated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per TP and Writegeist. The "arguments" and "diffs" offered to support sanctions make my stomach turn. It's telling when TP's dispassion and objectivity is mischaracterized as "fervent", "vocal opposition", etc., when he has simply shown some principle. (Also telling when the sanctions author, previously in a dispute with 76 but non-responsive to 76, tried to "boldly close" counter to a simple policy he surely knew but decided to violate anyway in rush to squish 76. And then try to blame TP for the close. [Yeah, right.]) There's too much prejudice and Mack Truck mentality and manipulation going on in the thread to permit any transparency or fairness to 76. On the basis of smelling too much I think this thread should be thrown away and wait till there is something real and not just full-bodied prejudice against 76. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Request for closure. If there's an uninvolved admin out there who can tear themselves away from the Eric discussion, closure here would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 1, 2, and 4. Support 3, but that is a requirement of all of us. Deleting something from one's own talk page is never a problem, and is only prohibited of unblock requests while the block is in effect, and that just to make it easier to review future unblock requests. Apteva (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  A requirement of all of us? Do you really not understand the difference between occasional incivility from legitimate editors and avalanches of obnoxious postings of …, an important component of his modus operandi? The same about 1 and 2: chattering on noticeboards and proposals is usually not a good conduct of any user, but to those who improve Wikipedia it is permitted. To those who merely express themselves it has not to be permitted, indeed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

I've posted this analysis on a couple talk pages and I'll leave it here as well.

• The entire thread, including the ban discussion, contains exactly four diffs of 76.189's actual doing:
  1. [144] A comment made after User:Dennis Brown had just accused him of Wiki-lawyering and not being here for the right reasons. A pretty mild response, I would've been a bit more -fruitful- in my language.
  2. [145] A comment User:Bbb23 said was polite
  3. [146] After Kudpung pointed to a dismissive essay when the IP was concerned about Bbb23's revert that doesn't even make sense to me why he'd revert it.
  4. [147] A silly mistake that was then called defacement by User:Incnis Mrsi, which he later admitted was wrong, but now has returned to calling defacement
• There have been no diffs presented to support the accusations in the proposal. The diffs that were provided occured on User_talk space and the first two parts of the sanctions don't even deal with those. The third is a given for all users, and the last, as I demonstrate below, is inaccurate.
• The bad boy list was language Bbb23 introduced, it was picked up by the IP in a humorous tone here because Bbb23 introduced the vernacular. Toddst1 turned around that around as evidence the IP actually had one and said it was classic battleground behavior. There is no evidence of a bad boy list, the comment was made in response to Bbb23 and was meant to be funny.
• The IP has numerously received accusations of "drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling", without diffs, responded rather politely, later with diffs showing the same behavior by his accuser, and for merely defending himself he is accused of more drama mongering.
• The IP has removed comments from his talk page. The policy, WP:BLANKING, says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." The IP has been using the IP for a solid 2 months, has been the only user to use that IP, and there is no evidence of use by others users. So a "dynamic IP" notice was misguided at best, trolling at worst and the policy quoted is inapplicable. In addition, the policy only covers removing this dynamic IP notice, not any other discussion on the page since the other comments do not "indicate other users share the same IP address". So the removal of comments by others was acceptable and the edit warring, and further warnings, to restore the removed content was a misunderstanding of policy on the part of User:155blue and User:I B Wright.
• Finally, he has apologized more than once.

--v/r - TP 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the talk pages that TP put this notice on, but the ensuing discussion at Dennis's talk page (which has now apparently ended) might be useful to others to read and there's the collateral benefit of reading another one my truly wonderful sitcom anecdotes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right I should have done that.--v/r - TP 17:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

MrX's as well.--v/r - TP 17:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to TParis' analysis

• To address your first and second points, here are some diffs that I believe support the premises for the sanctions (acrimony, WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYERING, WP:Harassment and drama).

(Context for the next several diffs: "Mike, a communications/PR person hired by St. Johns County, Florida, posted these comments at the help desk." This was beginning of what resulted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Longtime admin needs advice about WP:BITE)

• On your third point, I don't know if 76.189 actually keeps a "bad admin list", but it seems to me that they view Wikipedia as a battleground. His ingratiating behavior toward Orangemike contrasts starkly with his interactions with admins that have apparently slighted him (DennisBrown, Bbb23, BWilkins). The existence of such a list is not a factor in my !vote, but his very conspicuous, polarized interactions with admins are. It leaves me with the impression that he is here to prove a point, and not build an encyclopedia.
• On your fourth point, I would stop short of an accusation of trolling. However, 76.189.109.155's reactions to Andy's blunt comments does not help his case.
• On your fifth point, I don't much care what this user does on their user page or user talk page, within reason, and while they are in control of the IP address. There was some undesirable behavior by several users involved in that fiasco. None of that factored into my !vote.
• On your sixth point, it's great that he apologized. It would be be fantastic if he would agree not to add to noticeboard and talk page drama in the future. Since that is unlikely to happen, the proposed sanctions seem to be the next best alternative. - MrX 20:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I guess I just have trouble seeing those diffs described in those terms if they were from a registered account. I'm not accusing you of intentional or exclusive IP bias, but I've seen that same kind of attitude, from myself sometimes (in this very discussion), and it's hard for me to see it as intentionally disruptive; or even just disruptive. I don't know, I wasn't in those conversations, and I understand you weren't either, but thanks for at least pointing out what specifically is at dispute.--v/r - TP 22:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it was the steadfast removal to drop the stick and further the attacks that became disruptive. Individually, the diffs are mild - all together it's a vastly different story (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Response by 76.189 to the comments above. Hatting as I advised, at 76's request, for length sake. --v/r - TP 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, if the above list of quotes isn't a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Haha. So thank you for posting it! Putting a long list of mild, non-violating, random, out-of-context quotes and then, amazingly, labeling each of them with a big, bold tag of the editor's personal characterization of each of them (Wikilawyering, Battleground, Drama, Harassment) is downright ballsy. And I'm the one being accused of drama?? Haha. Why even include the bolded labels like that? And for each one? Do you think you need to tell other editors how each comment should be characterized? Like they can't decide for themselves how they see them? I actually love how that list was presented because it is a textbook example of poisoining the well. Yes, let's just find any random comment the IP makes and pick one of the negative descriptors with which to label it... in bold, of course. And for all of them, let's link the entire quote, as if the presentation isn't already dramatic enough with the big, bold, ugly descriptions. Haha. I have to say, it took a lot of guts to display the list in that manner instead of just simply saying something like, "Here are some quotes that I think prove the IP is causing drama: [diff][diff][diff][diff]..." So thanks for reinforcing my point about exactly what's going on here. Perhaps the most amazing part of that list of quotes is that had it been a registered editor who said many of those things, they would have praised for them, not assualted. There of course are several huge problems with this obvious and ridiculous attempt to paint me in a very bad light. First and foremost, although a few of the comments are not said in the friendliest manner, they are all quite tame and in fact many of them are very civil and and perfectly on-point with regard to the relevant discussion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the the points being made in each of them is totally irrelevant. Thousands of editors, including most of you, make comments like these all the time. So they're absolutely no different than what most of you say. But registered editors saying things like this don't get a second look and are seen as perfectable acceptable. But if an IP, especially one who has more than a basic grasp of how Wikipedia works, says them, they get trashed and are labeled (in bold) as the editor did above, or worse, called a troll. Although I've hardly ever used the term, if an IP calls someone a troll, he gets mobbed with attacks. But when registered editors calls someone a troll, it's perfectly fine. Just read this discussion. Let's call this precisely what it is: IP discrimination, pure and simple. And everyone knows it. One important point that the editor who posted that list failed to mention is that the first 10 or so quotes are from one discussion; the ANI about Orange Mike, where an admin was reported without anyone ever talking to him first about the matter. So let's put a little context into the matter here. You'll see in that discussion that Bwilkins literally tried to silence me by threatening to block me if I said anything else in the discussion. He backed down as soon as another admin, Bbb23, came in and said he disagreed with that threat. Again, this is a perfect example of IP discrimination. Do you think any registered editor would've been threatened with an immediate block simply for participating in a good-faith manner in a discussion, even if they were being more vocal than others? Of course not. Yes, I was repeating myself a bit too much, and I acknowledged that, but Mike had few defenders and a number of editors were addressing me directly, apparently not seeing points I had made previously. So when someone speaks directly to you or to a point you've made, you respond. That's how it works. TP explained that in this discussion. But so what if someone talks a lot; we don't threaten to banish editors from discussions simply because they're passionate about the topic, let alone threaten them with immediate blocks for doing so. That is admin abuse and I said it. And so have many registered editors, who do not get threatened like that. So - pardon the French - give me a fucking break if you think that is an acceptable way to treat any editor, IP or not, who is participating in a civil, good-faith manner. Another giant problem with this list is that it completely fails to balance the scales by presenting any diffs from my two to three thousand edits that would present me in a positive light. We wouldn't want to show any of those, would we? ;) But even the list above shows absolutely nothing that violated any rules and certainly nothing that would warrant any sanctions, let alone the four ridiculous ones being proposed that have absolutely nothing to do with what is being alleged. And, again, if neutral editors read the list of quotes above, they would label many of them with positive descriptors, and praise them, not boldly label them as malicious as the editor who's supporting the sanctions strategically did. I'm confident that most neutral editors would read many of the the quotes above and laugh at the bold descriptions that have been slapped on each of them. They would say, "Uh, so what's wrong with what he said??" Yeah, a few are a bit snide, but certainly not even close to the vast incivility that someone like AndyTheGrump has exhibited for many years. But of course he's registered and most editors just turn their heads every time he makes completely inappropriate comments. If he were an IP, he would've been kicked to the curb many years ago, and you all know it. I'm an angel compared to Andy, but most editors are simply afraid to stand up to someone like Andy. But he's not the only viscious registered editor who's been around for years; there are many others. He just happens to be one of the most notorious. Take Incnis Mrcis, for example, who went out of his way above to deceive TP into believing that I had "defaced" an admin's user page last month, when he knew full well that I accidentally clicked the user page tab instead of the talk page tab to place a notice. After I noticed Incnis' despicable attempt of destroying my reputation here (read the "deface" convo between he and TP above), and him writing to TP to continue the ruse, I made TP aware of what was going on. You can also read this interesting exchange between Drmies and Incnis about his nonsense claim of defacement; I think it will show you why a malicious editor like that should never, ever be allowed to vote on sanctions against anyone else. In fact, for what he did here in blatantly lying about what had happened in that situation, he should be blocked. And I don't like seeing editors ever getting blocked. But if it's clearly warranted, it needs to be done. Anyway, I'm actually glad that list of quotes was posted because it makes the best case of why these proposed sanctions are bogus. So let's see.. this comes down to me supposedly being too "dramatic" - and all its equivalents to make it sound even more sinister: wikilawyering, battleground, etc. - so let's just throw every sanction we can get away with at him... even if they don't apply to anything he did. Let's banish him from all discussions, tell him he can't be "uncivil" to anyone even though he's never been accused of being uncivil, and hey, let's just tell him he can't remove anything from his own talk page even though the only thing he did with his talk page was move (not remove) an IP template that shouldn't be there in the first place. I'm obviously not "sharing" my page with anyone; it's very clear that I'm the only one who's been using it for months. And, as TP said above, Toddst1 placing that template on my page "was misguided at best, trolling at worst". Precisely. And what no one's mentioning is that he did it immediately after he saw I made a comment to one of his fellow admins that he took offense to. The part Toddst1 doesn't tell you is that I removed that template six weeks ago and he knew all about it, because there was a big discussion at Village Pump about blanking issues, which included talks about that template. And the fact that so many admins completely ignored the fact that two editors (both registred) were edit warring on my talk page over that template, which they were fully aware of, is incredibly telling. And when I asked for help with that, it was ignored also. So I filed a report at ANEW and that was immediately declined by, remarkably, the admin who started this AN (Bbb23)! A clear case of edit warring on my talk page and its dumped by the highly involved admin who started this AN against me. And what's so sad about that is that I didn't want any sanctions against the editor(s) who edit warred on my talk page; I simply wanted an admin to educate them about the matter. Again, another classic example of IP discrimination. Had it been an IP edit warring over that template on a registred editor's page, the hammer would've come down on the IP in an instant. Btw, one of the editors who edit warred on my talk page has a mere 300 edits. I have close to 10 times that many. But they're registered and I'm an IP, so their edit warring was seen as acceptable. So this is the perspective of my accuers: No, we haven't even come close to proving he violated anything, let alone anything serious, but let's just beat the crap out of him and sanction him with as much as possible, because we know we can get away with it, because he's an IP. Sadly, most IPs who get treated like this just walk away and allow themselves to be unfairly trashed with highly exagerrated accusations with no proof to back up them up. With me, just a bunch of harmless, out-of-context quotes, that actually do more to help my case, than hurt it. But this entire matter has nothing to do with fairness. It's not even a consideration by my accusers. It's very simple: we don't like this IP and we can just impose whatever sanctions we want because... we can. Perhaps the most ludicrous part of this entire drama - yes, the drama of the discussion created by others, not me - is that I apologized immediately, and multiple times, for the tone (not points) I used in some of my comments. Sure, there are a few things I said that I would have said differently if I had to do it again. But hey, cast a stone if any of you have never said some things you regret once in awhile, or at least would have said differently. The viscious, vile, vulgar comments I've seen regularly from numerous registered editors don't even compare to the way I communicate with editors. I'm not perfect by any means, but I am an an angel compared to them. Yes, I'm sometimes more passionate than others in a discussion when I believe in something strongly, but that's no crime, and certainly not a violation that warrants any sanctions. There are also discussions where I'm one of the quiet ones in the room. Registered editors constantly get away with much, much, worse behavior than I've ever exhibited. And those who finally attract the attention of an admin who has the guts to stand up to them usually end up with a very minor sanction... a block for a day or a week, if that. Often times, just a strong warning, for behavior far worse than mine. Only the obvious, clear, extreme cases of misbehavior get the more serious punishments. So what do we have here? A bunch of generic accusations backed up by clearly insufficient proof. And a bunch of very harsh sanctions being proposed that have almost nothing to do with the behaviors being alleged. And not only have I never been blocked for anything, I don't think an admin has ever even issued a warning on my talk page for any of these alleged behaviors that all-of-a-sudden warrant months-long bans from discussions and other prohibitions for things that have never been a problem. Fortunately, any fair, neutral editor will see right through the sham going on here. It's interesting, those who've never had any involvement with me before this AN have read the entire discussion and have opposed the sanctions. Almost all of those supporting the sanctions are ones who have had little skirmishes with me, especially the four admins who led this effort and quickly created the sanctions proposal - Bbb23, Toddst1, Dennis Brown and Bwilkins - all four who I had communicated with on their talk pages just prior to this AN being started by Bbb23 - yet another important point that failed to be mentioned. Take away their four !votes (and sanctions proposal, of course) and what are we left with? A dead thread that goes nowhere. So the four extremely involved admins, who were having direct communication with me right before this AN, are the ones orchestrating this onslaught. Like a said, this is equivalent to a kangaroo court that has no credibility. That's not dramatic either because the four admins pre-determined the outcome here, the classic sign of a kangaroo court. Look above at how they completely disregarded my sincere apology very early on and very quickly proceeded to creating a proposal of harsh sanctions. That tells the story. It's almost surreal that so many of you suggest how offended you are by "drama", yet have created and perpetuated perhaps the most drama-filled ANI in a very long time. TP was a complete outsider; a highly respected admin who had zero contact with me prior to this AN and who (I assume) gets along quite well with the admins involved here. He reviewed everything that was said and presented, and told all of the supporters of the sanctions - particularly the admin leaders of this effort - "Everyone in this thread should face the sanctions except for the IP for making personal attacks without diffs." The only reason the diffs were finally presented (although they do nothing to prove the allegations or to substantiate the sanctions being proposed) is because TP made all of you see how ridiculous you were behaving and how unfair this process was. I suggest you re-read all of TP's comments, particularly the ones at 14:46, 1 July 2013, and this time do so with an open mind and the understanding that he was completely neutral coming into this. And claiming that he "doesn't understand" won't hold water because, unlike most of you, he's done a pretty vigorous review of my full history and edits, in addition to reviewing all the diffs some of you have presented (after he had to repeatedly ask for them). I would suggest you take TP's original advice: "This thread should just dissipate and the IP should be strongly recommended to register an account for his own sake to avoid headaches like this". --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This probably felt good to say, but it's probably not helpful. You might want to read my new essay at WP:ANI Advice. Ignore the picture. When posting here, you want to stick to brevity and only the facts. Can I suggest you hat your own message?--v/r - TP 17:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It probably felt as good as his false claim of apologizing - which he most definitely has never done. It also negates any such apology if it was, indeed given (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Felt good? Are you joking? And I never apologized? Really?[148][149][150][151] There are many IPs who have had their reputations trashed and simply walked away permanently from the project, but I will respond to this barrage of insults and misrepresenations. If I were registered and said and did all the same things, we wouldn't be here. Period. Hopefully, the closing admin will see through this charade and focus on the allegations vs. the evidence presented. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny. As the person most attacked by you, I note that not a single one of those links are on my talkpage, or mention my name specifically. There was no apology, and saying one exists is improper. Your reputation was created by you, not the thread above - actions speak louder than anything else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I "attacked" you? And you're the "most attacked" editor? I'm sorry, but telling you that I thought you were wrong to bring up past allegations against Orange Mike at ANI, which had absolutely nothing to do with the particular issue being discussed, was by no means an attack. And first, you claimed I "never" apologized here. But after I provided not one, but four diffs to show otherwise, you changed directions and said... 'well, they weren't on my talk page'. Wow, really? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

76, you're not helping yourself. TP has tried to explain that to you on his talk page. You even agreed: "I'm not going to say another word on any of those pages, including AN. I'm backing out." TP is sticking up for you, and I know you appreciate that, but you should take his advice more to heart. As an aside, I don't think of you an "IP". I think of you as an editor without a registered account, and I treat you no differently from anyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not helping myself? Bbb, let's get real. And please stop with the condescending lectures as if you care about me at all. You don't. It doesn't matter one bit what I say here. You clearly proved that by starting this AN without even telling you would do that if... (whatever). You didn't say one word about AN. And you were my friend. A friend would've said... I'm going to have to go to AN if... (whatever). Instead, you went behind my back without saying a word about this possibility. And just as bad, you started developing the sanctions proposal with Toddst1 very early in this discussion, when few editors had even been given a chance to comment, and after I had issued a sincere apology. So please, give me a break and stop talking down to me. Finally, I didn't anticipate the continued onslaught of insults and misrepresentations about me. So I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I will respond when I'm being trashed. My wife didn't think I should trust you after the little spat we had in May, but I said no, he's a good guy. Sadly, she was right (as usual). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Bbb23 was being condescending, I think he was giving you legitimate advice. You were right in May, Bbb23 is a good guy. It's a shame you two arn't getting along right now, but those things can be fixed.--v/r - TP 19:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Again does 76.189.… reiterate insinuations about alleged discrimination of IPs. It is a lie IMHO, and anyway it was not his unregistered status that caused headaches like this. With this conduct he, if registered, could easily catch a block within his first 600 edits. The truth is exactly opposite: in late May and in June many people thought of 76.189.109.155 as of a new user; only few persons knew he actually edited, intermittently, since August 2012 from other IPs within a /20 range. He was positively discriminated because of it, I think, until the incident with Ymblanter. He was allowed to consume a lot of attention of experienced users, a privilege that an account with a thousand of edits can’t enjoy without detrimental consequences. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Incnis, I suggest you stay out of this discussion. You have been proven to be a complete liar (not an insult, just a fact) with the deceptive game you played yesterday with TP in this discussion about my alleged "defacing" of someone's user page. This thread you started at TP's page tells the story. And although TP was the one who called you a "Wiki-dick" in that discussion, I'll concur with the sentiments. Any editor who would blatantly and maliciously attempt to destroy someone the way you did should not only not be allowed to participate in discussions like this, but shouldn't even be editing. At least editors like Andy don't tell flat-out lies; they just are rude and insulting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Cute. I understand now why TParis called it a baiting, but I said what I actually think without an intention to inflame the person in question. What I think although, of course, I can mistake in some aspects. BTW I’d wonder if 76.189.109.155 will not get his first block soon for this blatant violation of WP:NPA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Check your facts. TP said that Andy was baitng, and that I was taking the bait. (Sort of like what's happening now - you're baiting me and I'm stupidly taking it.) Do you ever tell the truth? Look Incnis, you have no credibility here and TP's comment to you was right on the money. And for the record, I didn't call you a "Wiki-dick", TP did. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

76.189, you should probably take a break for the day. Really, you need to make more of an effort not to see these folks as "opponents." If you register an account and agree to be mentored, I'll help guide you on this approach. Incnis, I'm going to assume the reason you didn't hit me with an ANI report yesterday was because I could have or I didn't report you also for your own civility issues in this thread. Let me suggest that before you write one such report on the IP, you review how your own civility contributes to the behaviors of others. Please settle down your calls for blocks or I'm going to encourage whomever blocks the IP to be fair.--v/r - TP 19:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For the day? And allow myself to continue getting trashed or condescended to by those who are strongly advocating for me to be harshly sanctioned? If I wanted a mentor, you would be a great choice. You've clearly proven to be an even-handed admin. You have no problem defending me or slapping me down when you think it's appropriate. Get this discussion closed and I'll stop editing for good as soon as that happens. So let's see who really wants drama. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion had pretty much ended until you responded this morning and as we can see, Incnis has no shame in continuing. He is been pretty successful at projecting the bad image onto you. I think it's time we all just let this thread die, if we're lucky, or be closed and that might take you and I backing off first. We've said our bit, we know what is true, and it's not necessary for us to have the last word. I think for my part, I've said all that can be said.--v/r - TP 19:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

TP did not appreciate my closure of this thread. I understand that and agree with him that this thread should be closed.

Would someone uninvolved, please evaluate the community's responses to #Proposal 2 above and close this thread please? Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, TP did not say it should be closed. What he actually said was that it was very inappropriate for you to close it,[152][153] not that it should be closed. And he said two things about what he wants to happen to this thread: (1) "This thread should just dissipate" and (2) "I think it's time we all just let this thread die, if we're lucky". Btw, I'm sure TP could reply himself, but I see that he's decided to take a wikibreak because of all the nonsense here at AN, along with some other great admins who are fed up.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you thought it was appropriate to close this discussion yourself[154][155] and declare consensus for the sanctions even though you (1) authored the sanctions, (2) !voted on the sanctions, and (3) posted six comments in the discussion. Or thought it was acceptable to disregard policy and post the notification. I can't help but consider the one part TP said to you about your actions; about how it's "hard to assume good faith when you pull a stunt like that"

One must wonder why you're in such a hurry to have this closed, as indicated by this edit summary and comment of yours. It's your choice to waste your time monitoring this discussion all the time. And of course don't forget, you are the one who authored the severe proposal that precipitated and inflamed this endless debate. Had you come up with a plan that addressed the issues in a fair and tempered manner, we could've been done with this drama in a matter of hours. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me reprhase: TP requested the thread die. I requested the Community response to Proposal 2 be evaluated and the thread closed. There is an active proposal that has received community input and procedurally must either be accepted or rejected. I reiterate my request for an univolved closure. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Toddst1, the author of the sanctions, is once again pleading for closure. Sadly, he continues to appear so anxious to see this thread closed that he's not only resorted to changing this subsection heading, but he also attempted to shout the request.[156][157] The long-standing original heading has been restored so as not to break the link for editors, and the message has been unbolded per talk page/shouting guidelines. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't commented in this discussion previously. My own feeling is amazement that anyone has managed to be so provocative as to exceed Dennis's patience. I think it's obvious that the topic ban listed as proposal 2 is needed. I consider this as something of a last chance. I urge someone to close accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"so provocative as to exceed Dennis's patience"... and I'm the one being accused of drama? That's just more rhetoric. You of course provided no diffs to substantiate or give any clarity to that very vague point. I understand you want to support your admin colleagues, but since when do we ban users for allegedly 'exceeding the patience' of a particular user, whatever that means? Should we ban every user that exceeds another editor's patience? If so, we'd be banning hundreds more users a day, at least. It's also interesting that you call this a "last chance" considering thet fact I've never been blocked, no one ever had a discussion with me prior to coming here (or even warned that it could be taken here), and I don't think any admin has ever even posted a warning on my talk page regarding any of these alleged behaviors.

And what actually brought us here? Well, Toddst1 re-added an IP template to my talk page minutes after I posted a comment on one of his admin friends' talk page, which offended him. And he readded the template even though he knew it had been removed six weeks earlier, without objection from anyone (including himself), after a big debate at Village Pump among dozens of editors. And then when I asked to discuss the matter with him on his talk page after he re-added it last week, he not only ignored the request, but actually removed my comments from his talk page. I looked up the guidelines regarding that template and found nothing that said it is required to be at the top of the page. So I moved it down lower on the page.

Bbb23 reverted me and says "these templates go on the top", even though there's nothing that says that. I told Bbb that I would be fine leaving the template - even though it's quite obvious that I'm not sharing my account with anyone - but politely asked if we could just move it down the page since there are absolutely no rules that say it has to be at the top. I even said that if he can just show me a rule of some type that says it must be at the top, I would gladly accept that and move on. Instead of working with me, or saying 'well, let's discuss it with Todd', Bbb gives a firm no. So, even though the template was still on on my talk page - just not exactly where Bbb wanted it located - Bbb takes me to AN without ever mentioning that he was even thinking about doing that. When another admin, TP, became aware of the IP template being re-added to my talk page, he described that action (above) as "misguided at best, trolling at worst". So this silly template issue is precisely what triggered Bbb to start this drama. But instead of just saying that in his opening comments here, he presented this entire matter as a wide-ranging assault on my entire history of editing, even though he and I never discussed those matters. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@DGG, now you've made Dennis at least in part a point of argument in this AN (by introducing "Dennis's patience" as yardstick for implementing sanction) -- good one! That argument doesn't pass critical thinking. It's manipulative and I think stupid also. Dennis has just as many faults as many others behind keyboards here -- perhaps even more since he's demonstrated to my satisfaction he has blind spot to his own inconsistencies, shortcomings, and biases. So when you editors lavish praise on him again and again ("Saint Dennis"), you're really enablers to an ill-advised situation where Dennnis tends to believe these things and gets an even more swollen head. And that isn't good. (Besides, Dennis does not need your praise, he's demonstrated time & time again he's perfectly capable of preaching his own "goodness" to the community at practically every opportunity he has found. And quite frankly I am suspicious of any editor who lavishes said praise, believing they likely have their *own* agenda for doing so. [For understanding that, I recommend People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

God bless both Dennis and DGG for always having a cool head and a sound sense of reason in the face of an on-going storm of antipathy for admins which generally appears to stem from the same people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My reply to DGG was about the quality of an argument based on "Dennis's patience". If DGG is a Black person do you conclude my comment makes me a racist? If DGG is a female do you conclude my comment makes me a misogynist? Do you have any additional sparkling ad hominems for the closer to review, Kudpung? And how many times have you used the phrases "antipathy for admins" and "anti-admin brigade" on the Wikipedia in the last week? Perhaps you need a long look in the mirror. (Do you contribute discussion, or push division on the Wikipedia, Kudpung?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've used them in fact many more times than you have perhaps even noticed, and always within context. It almost sounds as if you are feeling personally addressed. Aside from your comments on other admins, to understanding that, I'll remind you again that WP:POLEMIC certainly addresses a form of inciting division amongst editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about DGG or Dennis. So why make comments about them here? Your comments are off-topic to this thread, Kudpung. And your warning and accuse against me is equally off topic. You are an Admin. But you are using this ANI thread as off-topic WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Why don't you give it a rest, Kudpung Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no trouble parsing what DGG said, and the above responses to DGG's comment are wildly off the mark (and off-topic here, and likely to encourage further bad behavior from the IP under discussion since you are using this thread to oppose someone who opposed the IP). Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a discussion on arguments for or against sanction. According to you I'm supposed to preface a comment I have on the quality of an argument given, with thoughts how said comment might or might not impact the future behavior of a complicated organism that is a human being. That's pretty messed up, and quite a reach. It isn't my role to "play psycholgist" here, and neither should I try to do that, since I'm not qualified (and I bet neither are you). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Moderator wanted

At Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Lis_alibi_pendens_or_muddle_on.3F a clear consensus seeks a moderator using stipulated rules in that discussion to proceed on the article while the ArbCom process proceeds apace. Which means we have over a month to actually continue on a course to resolve the issues rather than focus on behaviours. The primary criteria here are that the moderator ensure that WP:CONSENSUS be followed, and be willing to say "Enough!" when it looks like there is any incivility or perceived delay for the sake of delay. Perfection is neither sought nor expected, just a willingness to get this thing finally done and likely protected. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be wiling to take up this position as an uninvolved editor. But before I'd say yes, perhaps a clearer outline of what the moderator is expected do would be helpful.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All the editors save one agreed there to very strict rules governing the moderation. When that one editor basically declined to accept the proposed rules, finding fault with all of them, I rather think the entire project died. If you wish to try dealing with some exceedingly tendentious personae, then try, but I have now taken up Pilate's bowl of water. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the rules or explain them to me?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The agreed on rules (prior to one objection to all of them)

1. Absolutely no mention of another editor by name in any critical context, period, including the implicit use of "you" to make critical comments about an editor in any post. (basically a "civility rule).
2. No "consensus" shall be claimed without a plurality of four !votes for any proposal.
3. "Drive-by" !votes are to be discouraged. (ones with no constructive discussion to be weighed minimally - but not discouraging constructive suggestions from added editors)
4. Any non-involved admin shall interpret these rules and be allowed to enforce them as though they had been posited in arbitration through AE.
5. If and only if this option is selected, we shall then decide on procedural matters including the questions of whether we deal with existing sections or deal with a general overview of the topic, etc.

An objection or clarification to one might be reasonable, but objecting to the entire group which was acceptable to everyone else seemed a tad more than I wish to deal with. I have dealt with editors with strong positions in the past (including on Judaism, Lyndon LaRouche and Prem Rawat among others) but this now takes the cake. All five layers of the cake. Collect (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I know the rules, now what am I moderating? That talk page?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Which editor has objected to all of the rules? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(to cyberpower). Yes, that talk page. I don't necessarily agree that the previous moderator's "hatting" of all but one discussion was a good idea, but I see it as acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(to Xenophrenic). You objected to 4 of the 5 proposed moderation rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(to Arthur). Incorrect. My only, single, objection was to having WP:CONSENSUS redefined as being determined by obtaining an arbitrary number of votes. One objection, Arthur; not something that would require an abacus. ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A theoretical advantage of this moderated page over the talk page being subject to "general sanctions" is that we've specifically agreed to follow the rules; and those who break the rules or do not agree to follow them can be banned from the page by the moderator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting task.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually a daunting one unless the editors there actually heed the stipulated rules. Collect (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't let Collect scare you (or any other volunteer) off, it's not that daunting. You set the ground-rules, participants agree to abide, and if there are any transgressions you simply ban them or drop them from the moderated discussions and move forward, as the previous moderator did. What is more likely to challenge you is your role as "the decider" when discussions reach an impasse with valid points and disagreements on both sides. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Violating the very first postulated rule - congrats! I am amazed it was this fast. Cheers - now I better stop before I say something entirely too candid about your modus operandi. Collect (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I can't violate #1 until (Option 1) is in effect, and apparently it isn't until we get a volunteer moderator. Cyberpower has shown interest, but do we have a commitment yet? Until then, you'll just have to wait to ... how was it phrased ... "spin up minor issues to try to get people smacked". Where everybody knows your name, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Final question. How is consensus determined by 4 votes? I'll agree to enforce it but I always thought consensus meant strength of the arguments was key.

(1) The "postulated rule", even if it comes into effect, will apply specifically to the TP moderated discussion, not to AN. So the accusation that Xenophrenic's observations are "violating" a "rule" here is wholly false and misleading, and should be struck. "Now I better stop before I say something entirely too candid about . . . modus operandi." (2) I don't know who posted the unsigned comments above about enforcing a 4-vote majority "consensus", but they're right. That's not consensus. But it's a great way to legitimize tag-teaming. Writegeist (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to be the moderator of this page. Although, I feel that consensus rule should be clarified some more. Collect, would you mind starting a discussion about that on the page?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic has vetoed any semblance of solid rules, so I shall not participate. He has quite successfully chased me off from that topic, and the horrid mélange now found on that page should be dealt with by you as quickly as possible, and you should establish what precisely the structure of discussion should be rather than the amebic shaped current "system". IOW, take firm rein. I would suggest you start with a simple consensus determining whether the article is about the general movement, or about all the subsets of the movement, and how much weight to ascribe thereto. Cheers, and (uploading a case of fine wine to get you through all this). Collect (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic only vetoed Collect's attempt to redefine determination of WP:Consensus to include arbitrary numeric !vote counting (and I even offered a simple alternative solution to address the same issue). If my objection to !vote counting so vexes Collect that he can't bring himself to participate in those consensus discussions, then there isn't much else for me to say on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, no. There has been no attempt to redefine consensus under Wikipedia rules. What we've done here is set a higher standard for claiming consensus. There can be no claim of consensus without a minimum of four "votes." The distinction is subtle but quite clear, and very important. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, no. The attempt was to redefine determination of consensus by saying it can't be claimed unless a team of four says so first. I can see how being able to wield such a roadblock to achieving consensus might be considered important to some. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Team of four"? Nope - and that is a blatant and deliberate misreading of what is, for example, current practice at ArbCom for accepting cases. That you find it a "roadblock" is fine - WP:DEADLINE seems to apply as does WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Requiring that a minimum number of Arbiters, from an effectively fixed pool of disparate arbiters, commit to hearing a case before proceeding - that serves a legitimate purpose. Introducing an arbitrary numeric (4? Really?) !vote counting requirement to the determination of consensus, rather than rely on the merit of reasoned discussion, appears to serve a different purpose. I say that after having observed the group dynamics at recent consensus discussions at that article. I guess I just have a general aversion to emphasizing numeric superiority over policy, reason and common sense. While your proposal may have been an attempt at addressing a problem (premature declaration of consensus), it also introduces additional opportunity for obstruction, and further reinforces the unfortunate misperception held by some that "votes = consensus". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done User:C678 (cyberpower) has accepted the role of discussion Moderator. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

RM backlogged, again

It appears that WP:RMCD is once again backlogged, with more than 50 discussions having gone on for more than 7 days. In addition, there are another 20 or so that have been open for 7 days and will move to the backlog in eight hours. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never done one of these before. I've looked at the instructions on how to do it, and they left me just a bit dizzy. If I try one, would some admin be willing to review what I did and make sure I didn't screw it up? The only way I'll ever be able to help out here is if I get some practice doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've non-admin closed a few. It's not particularly difficult but agree that WP:RMCI is incredibly verbose. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I picked one I thought would be relatively easy: Paul Chapman (footballer) (new name). I think I did everything the instructions said, but I didn't fix any double redirects. The instructions were somewhat weird on that score because on the one hand, it seemed to say "do it", and on the other hand it (and other things I looked at) said bots would do it and don't waste your time. There were a fair number, so I elected to leave them alone. I was also suprised when I deleted the old redirect (new name) to prepare for the move, that there was no option in the drop-down on the delete form, so I just wrote what I was doing in the box.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed Template:Geelong Cats current squad and about half a dozen other templates, which account for most of the redirects. The bot will fix any double redirects, but it takes less time to fix them yourself, so it is simply an issue of time management, fix them or go on to something else more pressing. Normally the editors who wanted the article moved will help with cleanup after it is moved. Here is a plot of the rise and fall and rise again of the backlog:

On one day we essentially had one admin clear out the entire backlog, including moving 25 articles, but they did relist 22. RM's can actually be closed at any time that consensus is reached, but waiting a week is standard if there is any reasonable possibility that new information will be presented. It would be very nice, though, to close or relist all during the last day before they reach the backlog, so that there is never any backlog. Just check the time at the bottom of the page and compare it to the timestamp for when the request was made or when it was last relisted. Apteva (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I did look at the backlog but closing RMs looks like a right faff and without closing scripts to automagic the tags its too much effort to dip in for a few minutes and help out. Can anyone suggest any ways of making the mechanics of closing the things easier? Without them I suspect your backlogs will continue and with them you may find they are cleared much quicker! Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Doing requested moves is not as hard as WP:RMCI might suggest. It's really just adding {{RM top|Moved, with optional rationale}} at the top and {{RM bottom}} at the end of the discussion. Remove the line which says {{requested move/dated|...}}. When doing the actual move, be sure the thing you are moving over has no significant history. The move will automatically delete the target if you check a box in the move dialog. When filling the edit summary say 'Per move discussion.' The other points in the move-closing instructions can be done by any editor, not just admins. Moves are not as horrible as closing AfDs without a script. The list of move requests at WP:RM is automatically updated so closing the discussion (and executing the move) are all that's needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

When you don't do it regularly its enough of a barrier that I would struggle to be bothered to go through RMCI every time to get the tags right. If I can have a script for closing xfds why can't we do one for RM?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Try asking a well known now blocked script writer for a script. I would not have any use for a script, since the three steps for a nac are simple enough. No one is stopping anyone from writing a script though. Apteva (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not to beat a dead horse, but there are now 63 backlogged discussions. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Despite being mesmerized by the charts above, I did my second one. I even fixed all the double redirects this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD topic ban proposed for Banhtrung1

I believe that Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs) lacks the competence to nominate templates at TFD, and therefore I propose that they are topic banned from nominating templates at TFD indefinitely. Reasons for concern:

• Bundling templates 9 days after the discussion has already begun and after nearly a dozen editors have commented - this despite a previous warning for this.
• Over-bundling of templates despite previous advice not to, see here, here, here.
• Said advice was also provided here, where Banhtrung1 was advised to split up their nomination into a few smaller ones. That was completely ignored and pretty much the same templates were taken back to TFD in another mass nomination just a few days later.
• Banhtrung1 was blocked by myself at the end of June 2013 for repeated malformed TFD nominations, yet they continue to edit in this manner which is becoming increasingly disruptive. I therefore feel a topic ban from TFD nomination is warranted - other partticipation such as commenting and !voting should be allowed. GiantSnowman 11:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Would a ban from 'bundling' nominations rather than nominating outright not work? Is there a problem with the nominations themselves? Or is it just the method he is going about it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Partly that he is nominating/bundling too many templates (against advice), partly that he is nominating/bundling dis-similar templates (against advice), partly that he is adding templates many days after the discussion has already begun (against advice). GiantSnowman 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Gnoming users who don't learn from mistakes should be given little leniency. In the end, they do far more harm than good. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I have taken this editor to SPI. GiantSnowman 11:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Never uses an edit summary to let watchers know that he nominated for TfD, never sends a message to the creator that he nominated for TfD, keeps adding new templates to the discussion after people has voted, or adding templates to the discussion that wasn't tagged for TfD, and votes several times in his own discussion (checks also this IP). I'm tired of babysitting, and if he gets a topic ban I might contribute to Wikipedia instead of cleaning up his TfD-nominations every second day. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Bahntrung1 has a very troubled history. Very young, and not a native English speaker. Possibly does not understand what he's doing wrong and he might not even know what this ANI is all about, if indeed he reacts to it. The 'it was my sister' most likely wasn't, and if it was it's meatpuppetry. To cut him some slack first, I would go along with the topic ban, without prejudice to him eventually getting blocked again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Under the proposed ban the editor will still be allowed to vote on TfD nominations, he just won't be able to nominate things himself. The SPI case was enough to justify a block, so I think Banhtrung1 is on thin ice. The topic ban is a reasonable step. The editor's talk page suggests a lack of awareness of our policies and little improvement over time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I will just qualify my 'support' !vote above for the ban to encompas the nomination of any templates, not just from bundling them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, apologies if I wasn't clear in my proposal - this is a topic ban from nominating any templates for deletion at all. GiantSnowman 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems like there are already a consensus to close this, and I believe it should be done as soon as possible as his nominations becomes more and more disruptive. Like removing a nomination from one day where someone has voted to keep (myself), and adding the same templates to another nomination on another day. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Block of IP

I have blocked 151.227.72.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one month. They have made a number of poor edits and have recently been blocked for a shorter period. Am posting here as I am blocking them for edits that occurred on a page I have edited previously. Others are free to change this block as they see fit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block. A singularly subtle form of vandalism, all very similar from one IP, that could often go unnoticed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Result of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem

After thoroughly reading this RfC and the arguments expressed for and against each draft, we have found a consensus for Draft 7 and have decided that it is within our mandate to insert the geographical information from Draft 14 in place of the ellipses of Draft 7. There was a consensus that it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel”, nor is it compliant to state “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such”. There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine.

We have decided to act under the broad mandate given us by the Arbitration Committee to set the first paragraph of the article in stone to best ameliorate the conflict, rather than instigate further conflict and edit-warring over what should replace the ellipses. Therefore, we have set the first paragraph of Jerusalem as follows:

’’’Jerusalem’’’, located on a plateau in the Judean

Mountains between the Mediterranean and Dead seas, is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely

recognized internationally.

To reiterate, this decision is binding for 3 years and no one may add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead.

Thank you for your participation.

Respectfully,

Keilana (talk), Pgallert (talk), and RegentsPark (talk)

What's with the numerous line breaks? How does 3RR play into this? Will editors be permitted to go past 3RR when restoring the lead, similar to what's permitted for enforcing the result of the Gdansk Vote? Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Line breaks are my fault, we drafted this offline and I was too lazy to remove them. As I understand it, 3RR can be broken to maintain this new status quo, but I do not work in Arbitration Enforcement at all, so I may be wrong, that's not my usual bailiwick. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re 3RR: don't edit war, and particularly do not do it on a WP:ARBPIA article! There should be a prepared statement (possibly a template given that it will be needed for three years) which can be put on the talk page of any user who edits in conflict with the finding, and who does a similar edit after being reverted. After that, it's a bit more explanation on the user's talk, then it's WP:AE. Only one revert is needed for that—let AE handle a persistent user or users. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm talking about the following situation: someone comes along and changes it to say "Jerusalem is the capital of __". You revert it per this consensus. Someone else (clearly not a sock/meat puppet) comes along and does the same, and you revert it per this consensus. Repeat several times before an admin comes along and protects it. Nobody's done even 1RR except you, and you're the one enforcing the consensus. Should you be blocked? I say "definitely not". After all, if you reverted a pile of people who were editing Gdańsk to change all appearances of "Gdańsk" to "Danzig", you would be protected from a 3RR block by the Gdansk Vote; why shouldn't you be protected here? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• My personal and non-admin opinion is that edit warring on an ARBPIA article would need crystal-clear justification to avoid being blocked (that is, a statement from Arbcom that you could link in your edit summary that edit warring over the issue is ok—LOL). Lots of people would notice an uninformed editor (or passing troll) changing Jerusalem against the ruling, so there is no reason for one editor to do more than one revert. It is possible that some edits would clearly breach the ruling and so in principle could be reverted ten times, but there would always be wriggle room for someone to claim that their text was not a breach of the ruling. At any rate, suppose you did revert someone ten times—would that really be desirable? Better to raise the matter at AE where it would quickly be dealt with. However, a standard notice to drop on an editor talk page would be highly desirable (although a templated notice possibly will not work from December due to WP:FLOW). Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• If an editor restored the exact text and pointed at the Arbcom decision when he did so, I would certainly be loathe to block him for edit-warring. It's not listed as an exemption at WP:3RR, but I suspect that's an oversight, not intentional.—Kww(talk) 06:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, however there are admins who are not as careful and who may (incorrectly) follow the principle of blocking everyone who has been edit warring. Later, that admin would be told what a blunder they had made, and the block would be overturned, but the editor would have a block permanently attached to their name. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, perhaps I misunderstood what was decided. Are people allowed to make modifications to the lead paragraph, as long as they don't "add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead"? I took the closing statement to mean both that capital status and location couldn't be changed AND that the decision to set the lead as such couldn't be changed, period, until three years have passed — and that includes no changes such as "claim is widely recognized internationally" becoming "claim has received widespread international recognition", or anything else with the same meaning but different words. No wiggle room there whatsoever, so your responses make me wonder if I misinterpreted the closing statement. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• My sympathy is extended to anyone trying to work in the WP:ARBPIA area, but experience shows that warriors there will argue about anything. The RfC is crystal clear to me, but unless you can link to an Arbcom ruling which says that reverting certain changes is exempt from WP:3RR, it would be much better to rely on WP:AE IMHO. When this first arises at AE, ask the admins there for guidance about what to do in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision history check needed

Need someone to check deleted diffs on Uri Lubrani and potentially any related articles, especially ones edited by Lamerkhav. When the Lubrani article was created, it looked like a copy/paste from somewhere else; the original revision contained components such as numbers in boxes (e.g. [2] [3]), which doesn't happen unless you copy/paste text that has citations. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect a google translate copy of de:Uri Lubrani.--Auric talk 19:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Sopher99 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for breaching the 1RR restriction in place on Syrian civil war, following this report. It's been questioned by another user; it'd be good if another admin could review this block. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The procedural complaint might have some merit if this wasn't someone who was already blocked on two different occasions and if there wasn't a big fat 1RR warning on top of the article talk page already. If you want to make extra sure that the block is fair, analyze their history in the article and in the topic area a bit more and see if they have been generally acting in good faith, and then adjust the block length accordingly (up or down, no prejudice). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse the block. The issue has been widely discussed on the talk page and this editor was acutely aware of it as he participated in these discussions himself. Furthermore, another admin specifically warned him about the 1RR in place only 5 days ago. Plus if you look at the talk page of the article another editor was about to file a complaint abut the same thing. On top of that, this user was worthy a block anyway for a wide range of reasons, including misrepresenting sources, repeated removal of sourced content, and repeated violations of WP:DUE WEIGHT AND WP:RS. I'd sy that a 48 hour block was extremely lenient. Pass a Method talk 00:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose unblocking the user. I did not see the report at ANEW, but I did notice the 1RR violation but chose not to do anything about it unless someone complained, which someone did. Although the unblock request is almost perfectly styled, it's hard to believe that someone with this history doesn't know the ropes. I would let the user sit out the block to ensure less disruption in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block. The block is in compliance with an arbitration ruling. Furthermore, the concerned user has been previously blocked in for being in violation of a one revert restriction placed by the Arbitration Committee as recently as April 2013. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have declined the block request, though I am, as always, happy to be overruled by the community. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

[Meant to come here before now] I agree with the block. I can't understand why this arbitration case is applied to the civil war — you might as well apply it to Liviu Librescu, a Romanian who lived in Israel for several years — but the editor obviously knew that the arbitration case was being applied to this article and kept on going anyway. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Non Admin Comment) I feel torn here. I'm inclined to assume good faith in that the editor simply didn't realize that they were, in fact, reverting. On the other hand, there's a lot of input, templates, warnings, etc. on the editors talk page about his/her editing behavior. That, combined with the fact that this isn't the first 1RR Arbitration block received. Dusti^*poke* 18:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nearly week-old edit request

Resolved

 – Edit complete.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

An edit request was made July 5 at Template talk:Infobox person, following discussion and consensus over the course of some months. As it's been nearly a week, the participating editors wanted to post a notice here and ask if an admin could go to that page. Thanks! -_Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Page move schmozzle

Could someone more experienced with page moves please help undo the tangled weave of page moves here? Note that similar set of moves were made on the 8th as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it all up. I restored the missing talkpage history and moved it under the existing content, and I removed the nest of page moves from the history of the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ta, you're a star!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

Editors here may perhaps be interested in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Should we add some guidance about non-admin closures? (a sub-page of this one). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On-wiki badness moves to major newspaper

The New Zealand Herald is the largest news paper in New Zealand's largest city, this morning it published this attempt to troll for information on wikipedia editor(s). The primary articles involved are Judith Collins and David Bain. Is there anything we can do about this other than being extra careful about the personal information of those involved? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably not - though I'm tempted to write a letter to the editor or journalist as the blocking admin. At least the story notes why Mr Brooking (aka Offender9000 (talk · contribs)) was blocked, though why they then give so much credence to his claims seems curious. The guy was using Wikipedia to aggressively push his views, and was engaging in potentially defamatory conduct concerning living people. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarke43's edits have been reviewed and accepted by other editors. The material reverted was usually obvious POV by Offender9000. Trying to force Clarke43 to reveal his real life identity is against WP:OUTING.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Must be a slow news day for the New Zealand Herald. The community has viewed the edits and I agree with them, I'm not see any issues with Clarke43's edits. Rather poor journalism from the NZ Herald to allow "Offender9000" to harass and attempt to out an editor. Bidgee (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The media interest is likely to be because the David Bain case is in the news again (search google news for this name; none of the current round of speculation is likely to make it into the article). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In case this gets further follow up over the coming days - it would be great if these comments could also please be 'mirrored' on to my talk page, as visitors to WP will struggle to find this discussion, especially once it gets archived. This all seems to be getting a bit out of hand. Thanks for your support. Clarke43 (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a disgusting piece of journalism, and pretty much amounts to harrassment. I think we should escalate this to WMF, and ask them to contact the author/editor/publisher. GiantSnowman 11:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember we hold to a different standard then the media does. Some may say ours is higher. I am curious if there is a connection between the banned user and the story though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the WMF can/will do anything, anyone reading the newspaper is entitled to make a formal complaint to them. I haven't looked in detail, but it may also be appropriate to complain to the New Zealand Press Council [158]. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel the WMF has a duty of care to its editors. GiantSnowman 12:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree - but even if this isn't the sort of thing they need to intervene in right away, I still think they should be notified and made aware of it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• With respect to the newspaper article, my view is the best course of action, unless more happens, is to do nothing. The media feeds on controversy, and responses, even critical ones, will make them happy and only prolong things. BTW, someone at the Herald should do a better job of proofing before they publish articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) The "writer" (or his "editor") could use some help from WP editors, given all the basic typo, grammar, and punctuation mistakes in the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that at this time nothing needs doing. Offender9000 had a long-term pattern of trying to bully other users into outing themselves, he's just had to take it off-wiki now and found some journalist desperate enough to actually write about his theories. Best thing to do is ignore them both, but more admin eyes on the relevant articles couldn't hurt either. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The depths to which some journalists will sink shouldn't surprise us (sadly). That's one reason why I don't like to see an over-reliance on media sources, especially with articles involving current events: they're selling a story while we desire factual accuracy.

I propose that the journalist in question be censured by the community or symbolically banned from Wikipedia. Taroaldo ✉ 03:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that this include formal bannination and a requirement that the guilty party be drawn through the streets of Auckland while seated backwards on an ass, the traditional punishment for one who has disgraced their profession. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef blocking of Phil Taylor for attempted WP:OUTING and working against the community. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that Mr Taylor's only edit is this polite post made without registering an account it would be impossible to ban him. If you want to ban someone, start with Offender900 who is attempting to use the NZ media to carry on a grudge against an editor in a fairly awful fashion. Also, picking fights with individual journalists tends to be a bad idea - it would be better to write a letter of complaint to the newspaper's editor or the NZ media regulator. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Referee might be useful

At Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Bulgaria where it is a teensy bit possinle that an impasse could be refereed. Right now it looks like "wall-of-text" arguments may be occurring. The other likely noticeboards (RS/N etc.) do not, in my opinion, seem likely to be the optimal places to actually get this resolved, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Arachkheradmand in the Urmia Page is vandalism. i have a valid source Encyclopædia Britannica→ [159]. The population is mainly Azeri Turkish, with Kurdish, Assyrian Christian, and Armenian minorities. But this User by nationalism source my edit Returns. Please see Urmia and Ardabil Page History.--Samək^Talk 12:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism, both editors involved warned for continuously edit warring and breaching 3RR across multiple pages. Any more reverts on the article without establishing consensus on the talk page will result in a block. —Dark 12:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI is better for this issue. Arachkheradmand's edits are not vandalism, but both users are involved in an endless edit warring/reverting/content dispute on several articles. It's better that admins verify both users' contributions (12 and 13 July). For example, user Samak also involved in another edit warring on Qizilbash yesterday. Also, his edit summaries are too bad/poor (see his contributions). Zyma (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox royalty TfM

Please add a TfM tag to {{Infobox royalty}} as requested on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:DrKiernan -- KTC (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox member of the Knesset TfD

Please add a TfD tag to {{Infobox member of the Knesset}}, as requested on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Done -- KTC (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:Morning277

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

---

This might seem academic, but it will help and seems blindly obvious. Still, I think any ban should be done proper and logged. This user is tied in with User:MooshiePorkFace in ways I can't explain fully, and who is already banned. This is the most prolific sock master we have by far. In the current case [160] I have already blocked 241 socks in the last 36 hours (yes, a new record) and I figure I have at least another 100 more to go. Unquestionably, there are many more undiscovered. A formal ban would make cleanup easier in the future. As it stands (de facto but not de jure banned), there will be between 100-200 G5s to do, and I might need to ask for that *after* the other work is done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban against abusive sockmaster. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support this is absolutely incredible. Dusti^*poke* 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support – No problem with a ban for such a prolific sockmaster. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Do I understand correctly that certain evidences suggest that two guys made numerous stubs for money? Where was this discussed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  The scope of the issue is exponentially larger than your statement. By multiple factors. Most discussions regarding it are not held onwiki for various reasons, including wp:beans and privacy policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Think it's relatively moot at this point, but support. --Rschen7754 18:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  I agree, but it is mainly to allow instant G5'ing on the spot, without concern. That is about all this does. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - no question, with socking on this scale. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support; we shouldn't need to do this, but better to do it so that people don't complain about G5 deletions for a defacto ban. Just one question — hasn't Bambifan produced many more than 341 socks? Or perhaps I misunderstand something? Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom: this is awful conduct. Thanks a lot for handling this Dennis. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  There may be masters with more found socks, this was just the largest single "bust" I've seen. I estimate more than 1000 socks exist, and likely many more. Many are created, do maintenance, are abandoned, and can't be linked due to being stale. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support pro forma ban per WP:NOTHERE, this individual's goals are incompatible with Wikipedia's. Zad68 03:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support this is pathetic conduct. Thank you for your efforts in dealing with this. Taroaldo ✉ 03:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Zad68 says it best. MarnetteD | Talk 04:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per scale of socking, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - goals are completely incompatible with wikipedia's, and, honestly, socking at this mind-boggling level indicates that his behavior is not only incompatible with guidelines and policies, but intentionally flying in the face of them. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it seems like the best way forward. - Bilby (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Given the fact that the user has caused serious disruption to Wikipedia with sockpuppets, he has exhausted patience with the community. It's game over for this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Enough is enough.

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

---

Despite specific instruction on the Editing subsection of the gadgets section of my preferences, VisualEditor has started to reappear on my account. I am now having to click "edit source" and not "edit this page" and for section editing I'm having to hover over 'edit' and then click 'edit source' despite clear instructions to the contrary!

Let me make one thing clear - I do not want the VisualEditor. I prefer editing the source because it is what I am used to, having been editing Wikis for several years. The VisualEditor, with all due respect to the developers, is absolutely vile and takes all the fun out of editing Wikipedia. It is the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia since Willy on Wheels.

I don't care whether it's a simple case of rectifying the bug or disabling the damn thing for good, but just get it as far away from me as possible. It is an insidious way of editing.--Launchballer 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Happened to me too today, but went away when I logged out and in again. Try that. (When it happened to me, I noticed that the whole "gadgets" tab in my preferences had temporarily vanished too, so my guess is it was a temporary malfunction of gadget loading). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Still ongoing. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Where_is_Gadgets_.3F. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Try my solution, which works 100% of the time. Better than "VisualEditor on Wheels!" Nyttend (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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

WMF intends for Only VisualEditor to be usable on Talk pages.

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.

---

Tech/Policy whinging - not an admin issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor&diff=prev&oldid=564282164 What. The. Fuck. Was anyone consulted on this? What if you want to quote text from the article on the talk page? Or wanted to use templates? Not to mention how many bots will need recoded. Goodbye auto-archiving bots. Goodbye the bot that handles Good article promotions. Goodbye to this noticeboard having the same format used for discussions elsewhere. Is the WMF insane? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Nitpick: Flow is not the same as VisualEditor. Otherwise, carry on. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC) ""You should strive to achieve Zen acceptance that the only editor for Flow will be the VisualEditor. If, by the time Flow is released, the VisualEditor supports a native code editor, it will likely be there. But nothing is promised - nor can it be." - Jorn (WMF)" "He went on to add "It is entirely possible that the data for each post will not be saved as wikitext because there are considerable performance issues that arise when doing so. If this is the case, things like templates will simply be unable to be supported." Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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