Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242

I am receiving death threats + vandalism by unsigned editor

An editor is vandalising pages and attacking me personally on talk pageswith death threats .

E.g. "...you pathetic piece of s**t. I will hunt you down and f***ing kill you.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josef_Mengele&curid=21628220&diff=523986010&oldid=523985892 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.90.241.170 I request an immediate blocking please.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Next time please post to ANI/AIV instead. Max Semenik (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Hopefully there won't be a next time. But... a week! That seems rather short. I have had no dealings with this person at all. Just received a death threat out of nowhere. I would have thought that with the amount of contributions from thsi person and the high proportion of them being vandalism, ad hominem attacks, thea1RR violation PLUS the death threat, that we can safely assume this person isn't a serious wiki editor they should be banned for a lot longer than a week! :-o--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an IP address that has only been used by that editor for two days. Long-term blocks of dynamic IPs don't have much value -- the person using them is likely to switch to a different address very quickly. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm says someone (not necessarily, but ideally, the recipient of the threat) should contact emergency@wikimedia.org -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

IP reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has been alerted. Thank you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can just imagine some 14 year old kid pissing his pants when the police come to his house to question him... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

See 137.86.162.138's contributions to Lingle, Wyoming — I reported them to the county sheriff's office, and after they responded to me, I ended up getting a very very deeply embarrassed apology email from the person behind the IP address. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully that's the last we hear from him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• That is a static ip and a known proxy server. Doesn't look open proxy, but hard to tell due to using some really odd ports. Will require some more digging, but a longer block is clearly warranted since this IP doesn't rotate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Increased block to one year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm also states the death threat should be removed from public view. The edits are:

1. here
2. here (edit summary only)
3. here (sinebot's edit summary)

Rgrds. --64.85.220.205 (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hidden those three edits. Hut 8.5 12:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the laws in other places, but in the state of Florida, the death threat in itself is a felony; they wouldn't just be going to talk to someone, they would be going to arrest someone, even if it's a juvenile. That said, if they're using proxies, it would be extremely difficult to trace them. Most trolling in general is a misdemeanor crime actually, but no one bothers to go after them. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Heavy backlog at WP:RFPP. Admins needed. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for more admins, but becoming an admin now is akin to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Good luck. Sincerely, an IP that wishes to become an admin but has no hope of that ever happening. 209.117.47.248 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK date request screwup will go on main page in 3 hours

Resolved

Admins have been ignoring the talk page all day. There are only 3 hours until the scheduling request is officially messed up. An admin is required to move Glenn Robinson III from the next queue into Prep Area 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 05:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election coordinators wanted

Hi all. Election season is underway, and the nomination period has closed. There are questions to be policed, checkusers to be bothered, and miscellaneous brickabrack that needs to be dealt with. If you're interested in helping out, please sign up to help at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Coordination--Tznkai (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User impersonating Admin

User:BJSelavkaotheus Canens has copied and pasted User:Timotheus Canens's entire userpage and is making nonsensical edits to pages. yonnie (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Let's see what, if anything, they have to say for themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

BJSelavkaotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for reference §FreeRangeFrog 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this user is vandalizing my userpage from an anonymous IP. See here. I have left a warning on their talkpage - User talk:207.224.192.66 yonnie (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, that was pretty nasty stuff, I zapped it. You should take it as a sign that you did something right when some coward attacks you like that. Whatever it is you are doing keep it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian incitement

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.

---

Somthing should be done about this article. It was created on November 18 and has a contentious history, including total blanking of the article by one experienced editor. Should it be speedily deleted as an attack page? Should it be AfDed? Should it be allowed to exist. The pro-Israeli bias despite some qualifiers is rather remarkable. I particularly like this qualifier in the lead: "According to the Israeli government (who are of course in no position to comment with any degree of credibility) ..." I have no idea who added the parenthetical, but regardless of its possible merit, it's not what I would call encyclopedic. (I'm not notifying anyone at this point.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've locked the article for 3 days because of the continuing battles; most everyone is ignoring the Arab-Israeli restrictions that apply to the article, and the reversions are fast and furious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting about 1RR, but I stand by my blanking, and later edit, per WP:IAR. The article was nothing but propaganda in support from a particularly obnoxious right-wing pro-Israeli perspective which goes out of its way to portray Palestinians as either conspiratorial schemers or gullible dupes, and utterly refuses to acknowledge their basic humanity. Garbage like this simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and if there was any real effort to enforce rules regarding this being an encyclopaedia rather than a shithouse wall, those responsible for such bigoted propaganda would have been banned years ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Take it to AfD and let the thing run its course. §FreeRangeFrog 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

...And after it is deleted, the same crowd will create another 'article' pushing the same propaganda... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)}}

At which point it could be deleted again? Or salted? I don't understand how/why/when you believed blanking the article would accomplish anything. -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like this article is mostly about indoctrination/propaganda in the Arab-Israeli conflict and I imagine there would be more than enough information about Israeli activities to balance out an article covering that broader subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the protection. There's basically one persistent revert-warrior and Andy's violation of the 1RR, both of which should be acknowledged -- certainly with a block for the former, and possibly with another for the latter. -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would identify who you think is the "revert-warrior"; if you mean EditorInChiefSD, they were already blocked before I locked the article based on pervasive misconduct across many P-A articles. It would also be helpful if you would express an opinion as to whether the article should be kept. I tend to disagree witih Devil's Advocate, although it's not clear if they are saying that it could be a legitimate article or it is a legitimate article, two very different things. Andy's citation to WP:IAR makes no sense. IAR arguably works when there is no existing mechanism to protect the integrity of the project. Here, it would be straightforward for Andy to tag it for speedy deletion if he thinks it qualifies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My position is basically that, with a lot of work, the content could be used for a quality article under a different name. I suspect that if we take this to AfD the consensus will eventually become "keep, but needs improvement to address neutrality issues" and essentially waste time. Although, one could say that putting something through AfD can have the effect of compelling improvement, but I wouldn't suggest using it that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so you blocked EditorInChiefSD (talk · contribs) and still thought it was necessary to protect the article? I can't understand why you thought protecting the article would accomplish anything. It doesn't matter whether I feel the article should be kept or not; protecting an article and deciding on the Administrator's noticeboard is not how it should be decided. Blanking articles is not how it's done either. You should know that, and just as in any other administrative action, you should not allow your agreement or disagreement with one party guide your actions. WP:ARBPIA restrictions are in effect here, just as in any other Israel-Palestine article, and they ought to followed and enforced. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with Andy the Grump, it is not encyclopedic, I'm not familiar with the term but I think it is, a term I saw above, an 'attack page' - is this phenomenon the subject of discussion in RS? do I hear it on the BBC? No - it is the equivalent of a propaganda leaflet drop - it is outright propaganda - unsubtle at that - "The article was nothing but propaganda in support from a particularly obnoxious right-wing pro-Israeli perspective which goes out of its way to portray Palestinians as either conspiratorial schemers or gullible dupes, and utterly refuses to acknowledge their basic humanity. Garbage like this simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia," - yes, thats what I want to say. How could it be used for a quality article, devils advocate?- look at the sources - this is propaganda. Sayerslle (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Which of the sources are propaganda? Associated Press, Agence France Presse, The New York Times, Jerusalem Post, BBC, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, etc.? Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently, the article has received some off-wiki attention. I will be going off-wiki soon (NOT to post to the blog). If there is a consensus among administrators that the article should be unlocked for whatever reason, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A note to everyone — blocks for 3RR aren't appropriate when the page in question has been fully protected, since blocks are preventative, not punitive. Nobody's going to be able to continue reverting, except for admins, and any admins who engage in revert-warring here will need an Arbcom case, not just a simple block. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I never suggested that both the protection and a block should be applied, although that's effectively what's happened here. An editor has been blocked for disruption (although not solely on this article) and protection has been applied to one of the articles he was disrupting. Without this editor, though, there's really nothing warranting protecting here. If you accept Andy's IAR claim, then there's nothing else to do but encourage him to file an AfD. If you don't, he should be blocked for violating the 1RR. Either way, protection was not the right move. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Looks like about everyone is objecting to the current state of things. Could we move it to a non-mainspace title, such as Talk:Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Palestinian incitement? This might be able to resolve both the "bad but saveable" and the "horribly POV" objections, letting people fix it without presenting readers with badly biassed material. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree with D-A that it's fixable? Just curious what your views are. There is already an article Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and there may be others similar to that - I'm not an expert in this area (thank goodness), and I'd have to hunt them down. BTW, your typo/unintentional play on words is amusing ("biassed").--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No opinion on that; I figured that we could move it as an immediate fix to the biggest problem of problematic content, since that would give us more time to decide what to do with it since it's away from public view. I'm willing to take the large-scale dispute (both in the page history and at this page) as evidence that many many people strongly object to the current contents of the page. I've looked at nothing except for the intro. Meanwhile, "biassed" wasn't a typo; see OED, which gives it as an alternate spelling. Hadn't thought of "bi-assed", though :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Confound those Brits.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the more closely-related article would be Public diplomacy (Israel), a less slanted and less developed article on the Israeli media campaign. There is a tangentially-related article called Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, but that one is more about the external view and is in a much worse state in terms of quality writing than the aforementioned article or the one we are discussing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean merging/redirecting this article there, or moving it to Talk:Public diplomacy (Israel)/Palestinian incitement? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As the original creator of the page I'd appreciate being involved in the discussions. This subject clearly merits its own page, given the copious references that address the issue directly - and I have barely scratched the surface. I implore admins and others not to give into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please judge the article on its own merits. It is very well-sourced to only reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we also address this off-wiki canvassing by User:Bali ultimate on Twitter [1]?

Saying, "Hey! Look at this article!" is not canvassing, dude.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DA, I have to say I find your comments attribute to you here a bit troubling and un-neutral: [2]. User:Bali ultimate isn't too kind either: "'Plot Spoiler' is in fact one of Wikipedia's longterm propagandists for maximalist, far-right Israeli positions. He's probably one of the five most active in that coordinated little propaganda effort." Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Upset because he's only ranked you fifth? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Talk about a fishing expedition. Anyway, the correct forum for this is AfD. I've removed the protection from the article, allowing anyone to add an AfD tag if desired. As I stated above, there was no reason for protection as the primary edit-warrior was already blocked, by Bbb23 no less. If someone wants this deleted, file an AfD request. I don't know why this is a matter for WP:AN or why this requires emergency administrator assistance. -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So much for consensus. Don't forget to hand out blocks if anyone violates WP:1RR. Good night, all.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have missed the place where there was consensus for your protection. And where there's consensus for blocking an edit warrior and protecting the article he was reverting on. I also must have missed the part where you said you were only looking for comments from people who agreed with you. Note that the removal of protection still doesn't stop extrajudicial deletion, if that's what you're hoping for. -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually flattered I'm ranked anywhere in his delusional fantasy-land. Sorry about your grumpiness. Maybe this article I created recently will cheer you up: Alcohol enema. You don't have to try it yourself... Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really suggesting any specific action. My point was just to note that with this article we have a rather slanted take on Palestinian propaganda efforts, while the article I mentioned is a more balanced take on Israeli propaganda efforts. Certainly, I could see putting these two articles together as a single article on propaganda in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Per reliable sources, incitement is a key Israeli concern in the peace process. It is not an equivalent concern on both sides. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Per reliable sources, there have been concerted efforts by pro-Israeli activists to subvert Wikipedia policy by inserting propaganda into articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have now nominated the 'article' for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

history restore request

Can someone do a history restore at Template talk:2010-2019VSFashion Show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done because harmless, but there is nothing useful there... CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had properly created this talk previously so I just wanted to see the history. If I had known it was only the deletable page, I wouldn't have made the request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

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 left the following message for user:Plot Spoiler on their talk page under the heading, "Tendentious editing".[3]

Hello.

I have some concerns with your editing. You mostly edit content about Jews, Judaism and Israel, and Muslims, Islam and Palestine, almost always slanting content in favour of the former and against the latter (such as Palestinian incitement). On your rare excursions outside that area, you have created or expanded six articles about commercial products or organisations, five of which were biased. (I have no problem with Kiehl's). In all but one of the latter you created promotional puff-pieces or puffed-up existing articles. The exception was the Warwick New York Hotel, where you inserted a lengthy section (longer than all of the remainder of the article) blaming them for renting a room to the Iranian prime minister; that is, pillorying them for not taking the political stand you would have preferred.

If you are not already, you should make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander.

This kind of behaviour brings the encyclopedia into disrepute and creates a lot of work for others. Would you please acknowledge that you have been editing tendentiously, undo the damage (starting with the Warwick) and agree to be more balanced in future?

• July 2010: Shake Weight.
• September 2011: Warwick New York Hotel.
• July 2012: When Killian Roche from IWL ran into trouble at Meridian Audio [4] you took over and created a puff piece. Today I removed the puffery.
• September 2012:‎ I'm no AFD expert but Digital Luxury Group doesn't look notable to me.
• October 2012: You deleted reliably sourced text that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the ALCAT test, replaced it with misleading puffery supported by celebrity endorsements,[5] and edit-warred to keep it in.[6] When it became clear that the article would continue to report what reliable sources have to say about the test, you took the article to AFD.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

His response was to Archive my post.[7]

Is this editor's behaviour problematical? If so, what to do? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This really feels like stalking honestly, or wikihounding or what have you. Anthony and I have a disagreement at ALCAT test and now he appears to be digging through my user history to establish his own tendentious conclusions (made clear by the fact that he only emphasized purported negatives and not anything positive - see all my DYKs, etc). I'm sure I could establish a similar conclusion if I felt like digging through Anthony's user history -- but that wouldn't be the best use of my time and would be a form of harassment. Is this even the proper forum for such a discussion (if such a discussion should even exist?)? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Archiving a post may be taken as proof of receipt. You've issued a note of concern. If the problematic behaviour continues, then escalate either to an RFC (if it looks like he may be an otherwise good editor we need to correct) or request a community ban (if he's self-evidently an unreforable POV pusher). Caveate, I've not looked closely.--Scott Mac 16:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthony put the wrong diff: This was my response to his message on my talk page [8]: "this is starting to feel like 'stalking'". I don't believe it was worth discussing with Anthony because I don't believe his behavior is done in good faith. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was unfamiliar with this editor until the Palestinian incitement brouhaha. Other than looking at his block log, I have not researched his past edits. Focusing on the bias issue (you've raised two issues the bias and the puffery), which to me is more serious, do you have other examples of his bias besides the recent article (the Warwick Hotel article is somewhat tangential although relevant)? If so, that would assist in deciding whether a topic ban is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I only had time today to make the apparent paid editing case. I'm on a dodgy connection and can go for long periods without internet access. I looked at enough of the other to satisfy myself there is a problem with pro-Israeli anti-Muslim bias but making that case properly will take time. Five more on the scale of Warwick New York Hotel and Palestinian incitement should make the case, I think. The Warwick Hotel effort is not tangential to a pro-Israeli-anti-Muslim bias. --16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I request you strike the marks on "anti-Muslim bias". I consider that a personal attack and unwarranted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, I don't make "rare excursions" outside the listed topic areas as claimed by Anthony (and I take umbrage at the claim) if he even bothered looking at my DYKs:

Nasrin Sotoudeh - imprisoned Iranian human rights lawyer

Walid Husayin - imprisoned Palestinian blogger

Zahra Bahrami - executed Iranian dissident

Zenga Zenga - viral auto-tuned song embraced by the Libyan opposition

Mexican pointy boots - awesomeness

Baltimore Rock Opera Society - awesomeness

Yossele the Holy Miser - fabulous folk tale

Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies - important institution

Gholhak Garden - beautiful British diplomatic compound in Tehran

Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil - al-Qaeda operative based in Iran sanctioned by the U.S. government

Sim Bhullar - could become the first prominent NBA basketball player of Indian descent

Saeed Malekpour - Iranian-Canadian computer programmer on death row in Iran

Alcohol enema - awesomeness

Keep in mind that those are Anthony's interpretations of my edits. If you'll look at the condition of any of those pages cited by Anthony before I began working, you'll see I added significant value in a manner that I deemed consistent with Wikipedia rules.

I'm also quite concerned this is quickly going to turn into a witch-hunt -- seeking to establish tendentious conclusions based on cherry-picked information. Let's see all the POV warriors show up here... just wait. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Plot Spoiler. You are not helping yourself here. I've not looked (yet) at your edits and so have reached no conclusion. However, the point of this board is that neutral and uninvolved admins examine issues and find solutions (if warranted). Trying to poison the well with preemptive accusations of witchhunt and POV warriors doesn't help. Now, if neutral people look at your edits, will they see a problem? If you are sure they won't, then you've nothing to fear and no need to be defensive. If you think they will, then better to indicate you're aware that you may have occasionally edited less than neutrally, and give some undertakings that you "get it" going forward. That's generally all it takes.--Scott Mac 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, do your thang. Happy to work with you and others to address any potential issues. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I became aware of the editor due to the last AN post here. The editor clearly believes wikipedia is a battleground, as amply demonstrated by his comments in this very thread. The edits are clearly slanted, such as putting this into article space: [9]. The editor removes opinions and criticism from notable organizations that criticize Israel and Jewish groups: [10][11], while adding content critical of Muslims and Arabs elsewhere: [12]. Here he adds lots of content to calls for a boycott etc [[13]][14] which trimming away standard material describing the hotel: [15], such that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad section is bigger than the rest of the article: Warwick_New_York_Hotel#Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad, all the while he was edit warring with another editor to remove any non-controversial content: [16]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the board was for "neutral and uninvolved admins"? Again, this is an example of tendentious editing - cherry-picking information to establish a certain conclusion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the extent of our interaction: [17]. I've only edited one article the same as you, and that was 3 days apart. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are focussed on removing criticism of Israel and it's allies, or that does not portray them in a positive light such as [18][19][20]. Large edits about campaigns against Iran, even though mostly based on primary and self published sources: [21] (while removing content elsewhere as being self published: [22][23]. And adding criticism about companies that support Iran: [24]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Should I apologize for my concern about human rights in the Middle East and highlighting the plight of dissidents like Sattar Beheshti - believed to have been tortured to death by Iranian authorities in Evin prison? Please WP:AGF and stop making wild accusations based on cherry-picked information. Otherwise I'll have to call the Elders of Zion on you. I hope admins will remove your remarks since you are not a neutral and uninvolved admin or a neutral and uninvolved editor. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have not yet made a case for serious tendentious editing in the Israel-Islam area. I strongly suspect it, I've seen instances of it, but we need to wait until I or someone else have done a thorough survey of those edits to determine how serious the problem is. I know there's a serious problem with your puffing of commercial articles; I'm pretty sure you've been being paid by a PR company to puff for them since last July. But the other is less certain, for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. If your interactions on this page are examples of your interactions overall, I see an WP:RFC/U in order. An issue with your behaviour overall was raised with you separately. Rather than respond, you deleted it. So, it was raised here where admins and other editors may review your edits and behaviour and comment. Your responses to requests to change your behaviour are not only not positive, but they're proof of poor behaviour overall. Although at first glance I don't see anything immediately requiring admin attention, but I certainly see that the community as a whole certainly might wish to get involved - you just act nasty towards everyone and anyone, including neutral parties who actually know the community nature of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add to what BWilkins has said. You're not taking Scott's advice to heart. You're making things worse with just about every comment you make. As a procedural matter, there is absolutely nothing wrong with non-admins posting here with their views. IRWolfie has as much right as anyone else to post comments as to your conduct. In addition, your sentence about the Elders of Zion is odd, at best. It's apparently a threat, but I don't even understand what you mean; was it intended as sarcasm, something else?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I apologize. Editors are making some very serious charges and I felt the need to respond to statements which I felt were unfair and unsubstantiated. I have struck some of my remarks and I will let the process take over. Please let me know how I can be at your disposal. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated? I presented 15 diffs showing your behaviour, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to bed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I tried that last night in the topic above. Little good it did me. I woke up this morning to what I perceived as offensive remarks by another admin. On the positive side, I slept well. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet read any of the underlying diffs, but based upon the interaction on this page, I guessed Plot Spoiler was a newish editor. I was stunned to see almost 7 thousand edits, yet complete lack of understanding of how this place works. On a positive note, I hope that's because Plot Spoiler's edits haven't been the subject of the admin boards. However, for Plot Spoiler's benefit:

• Yes, this is a place where someone can bring items of concerns in the hope that uninvolved and neutral admins can take a look, but that does not mean only neutral admins can comment, it doesn't even mean only admins can comment.
• Others have pointed out that your accusations aren't helping your cause; I hope you most recent edits mean you now understand that.
• If an editor sees potentially concerning edits by another editor, such as bias or puffery, it is not stalking to look at the other contributions of the editor. It is standard practice. There have been real cases of stalking, this isn't in the ballpark. SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot has been a regular on AE concerning the ARBPIA topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what constitutes being a "regular". Important to point out I haven't been blocked from Wikipedia or the ARBPIA topic area for more than 24 hours - as opposed to other ARBPIA editors that have faced indefinite blocks or blocks extending months of weeks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'd use that as a defense, but in any event you were blocked for 31 hours in February of this year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are any problem with certain editor in the WP:ARBPIA area you may raise in WP:AE.Actually there are bunch of editors hat want to promote their POV from both sides of the conflict.Should all of them be banned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the severity and persistence of the POV-pushing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well many were topic banned and still returned to editing I think I could present diffs on many editors in the area and show they promote certain POV along their editing history.I don't see anything damning in the diffs presented by editors here but if anyone here have a case I invite him to go to WP:AE so the matter will be solved.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall an AE case where someone presented evidence of long term systemic bias and the editor was topic banned on that basis, although I may have missed a few. I'm not sure AE can handle that or at least I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it can. People are banned for technical violations/edit warring or when they make egregiously disruptive edits. AE doesn't seem to be good at dealing with complexity or large amounts of evidence. Editors aren't good at preparing large amounts of evidence either, it's tedious. Banning all editors who promote a POV they favor via ARBPIA3 or whatever probably wouldn't work because new editors arrive everyday to advocate, many far worse than existing editors, many of them sockpuppets of course and some active right now as usual. I would choose an honest but biased nationalist editor over a dishonest biased nationalist disposable sockpuppet account that can break rules with impunity, any day of the week. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to delete all the articles in topic area or maybe freeze it in current state.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant. Either of those options works for me. Or build a security barrier around the articles and have a rigorous entry policy, just pick a random attribute to build the granfalloon of suitable editors with the right qualities, favorite cheese for example, must be Chinese on their father's side, or whatever, exclude everyone else and have drones flying over head to zap intruders. The problems in the topic area really do seem completely intractable to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unless you've been living under a rock, you'd have realized that there are about two dozen other editors who act very similarly to Plot Spoiler. And they've been doing it for years. Some have received temporary bans at AE, but some have never been sanctioned. Biased editing in the IP area is not a sanctionable offense per se. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I have looked at a couple of the disputes related to the WP:ARBPIA area, and they induce despair. Eventually a draconian solution will be needed (some LOL suggestions: have one set of articles that only P editors are permitted to edit, and another that only I editors are permitted to edit; or, have a rule enforcing no more than 10 edits per week in the topic area or its talk pages or noticeboards for all P and I editors). The combativeness in Plot Spoiler's comments here shows the general pattern that applies throughout the PI area—those involved are fighting a noble cause and will not be dissuaded by reason. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still browsing through his contributions. I've found a few problems but my connection keeps dropping out. Let's close this for now, and when I'm back in civilisation I'll have a forensic look. If I conclude there's a problem in the Jew/Judaism/Israel/Muslim/Islam/Palistine area I'll make a proper case. If it comes to that, where should I take the case for a topic ban? Here?

Plot Spoiler, I am very confident you're a paid advocate for a PR firm. If you come anywhere near another medical article with that shit, I'll move heaven and earth to have you run off this site. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, please stop posting inflammatory personal attacks of this kind. Please refactor your post. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony, as per normal practice, I see this as the best forum for proposing a topic ban, particularly if you're going to argue that the editor should have more than one topic ban depending on your research. I'd like to add that I started to do a review of the editor's edits from the very beginning of their tenure here, but I found it difficult to collect evidence in support of a ban. I was looking mainly at the editor's edits to Arab-Israeli articles, not the medical stuff, although I did note the user name change early on. In any event, I saw a pattern emerging that went kind of like this: (1) Plot Spoiler (PS) makes changes to controversial articles; (2) PS edit-wars without breaching 3RR; (3) another editor templates PS's talk page about 3RR; (4) PS doesn't edit again, thereby avoiding a technical breach; and (5) PS removes the 3RR notice from their talk page. That kind of pattern is inherently disruptive, but, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily indicate bias or rise to the level of warranting a topic ban. To analyze that aspect, I'd have to look at the actual content changes. Unless they are glaringly biased on their face (like the Palestinian incitement article), I'd have to (a) know more about the subject and (b) know more about the reliability/objectivity of the sources. So, partly because of that and partly because it was so tiring, I stopped - and I hadn't gotten even close to the present day.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If he is proposing a topic ban broader than a ban from articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict then this is indeed the place. However, if his concerns are most pertinent to the Arab-Israeli conflict then I believe AE would be the appropriate place to take it. Personally, I would have to see something more convincing regarding Anthony's "paid editor" allegations before I would take that seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no basis for saying that AE is the only forum for proposing a P-I topic ban. Indeed any involved admin may impose a topic ban without even coming here. "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." (WP:ARBPIA) Per WP:AC/DS: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You right but that's the usual practice to get input of more then one admin--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the "usual practice" is, Shrike, without looking at statistics, but if the objective is to get input from other admins, it seems to me that WP:AN is a good place to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

AE is not the "only" place for proposing such restrictions, but we wouldn't want people bringing things that can be handled at AE to other noticeboards. Obviously, if there are issues not pertaining to ARBPIA then AN or an RfC/U would be the more appropriate methods.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

But there isn't any evidence that complicated issues in ARBPIA territory like persistently biased editing, things that potentially involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE as far as I'm aware. Setting aside the Palestinian incitement article, if you want to see Plot Spoiler in action, in microcosm, I suggest you look at the history of the Camp Ashraf raid article. It's not long. It provides insight into the editor and will give you some idea of the volume of evidence likely to be involved in cases that address these kind of issues. It's just one article.

• The article is about a raid on a People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) camp, an organization ironically not very unlike some Palestinian organizations. If you have been following the covert/proxy war between Israel and Iran in the news (e.g. [25][26]), you'll understand why this article might be of interest to Plot Spoiler.
• His initial version is here. Note that it was orginally titled Camp Ashraf massacre and he added the categories 'Massacres in Iraq' and 'Mass murder in 2011'. Why ? Plot Spoiler explains that in an edit summary, "was a massacre even if not named as such. killing of 34 more or less defenseless individuals". He explained it again at List of massacres in Iraq with the edit summary "Murder of 34 defenseless individuals is a massacre" after someone removed it for equally unsound reasons because a "raid on terrorist base is not a massacre" and "there were many more counter-insurgency operations with higher civilian casualties". See the revision history for the short edit war. Imagine if someone used Plot Spoiler's approach to naming an article and categorizing something as a massacre in an article about an IDF raid on the Gaza Strip or any of the many conflicts that have taken place there. There have been hundreds of raids. Thousands of people have been killed in the Gaza Strip in the last 12 years, a large proportion of which were, like in most conflicts, "defenseless individuals". Would Plot Spoiler let that kind of policy violation stand, unsourced labelling of IDF actions as a massacre, a mass killing, using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice ? Not a chance, and rightly so. The double standards are comically transparent. He nominated the article for DYK, obviously.
• Now, I'm sure Plot Spoiler could come up with some explanation for his interest in this raid on the MEK camp and anything he does. They have already said "Should I apologize for my concern about human rights in the Middle East", but that statement is inconsistent with the evidence from their editing history which shows a highly selective concern for the human rights of certain subsets of humanity in the Middle East. Israel, like many countries (and MEK), has a less than stellar record on human rights. But human rights in Israel and the occupied territories is evidently not something that interests Plot Spoiler according to this contributors list.
• Camp Ashraf raid is just one article but it shows a disregard for content policy, presumably because it is less important than other issues of concern to the editor. I'm sure that if anyone could be bothered to go through Plot Spoiler's contributions, systematically documenting cases like this, there would be many because the editor is a text book example of a biased advocate, one of many.
• Someone might ask "Why single out Plot Spoiler, there are lots of biased editors?" "Why not ?" would be my answer to that. Baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, perhaps you should start with yourself, since you are a highly biased anti-Israel activist/propagandist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.107.108 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone wanted to go through every single edit I have made in the topic area and compile evidence to support that statement, report me at the appropriate place, I would have no objection at all. I would encourage someone to try to do that, I might even help them because the process of addressing biased editors needs to be optimized/tested, but it would be a waste of their time. I am highly biased about several issues, but not about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I just don't edit articles where my bias could trash my editing. I'm not anti-Israel, I'm pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, what's the difference, people are people. I'm not an activist in any way, shape or form and I'm a propagandist only in the sense that I look at and read a lot about propaganda in SEAsia as a hobby. But carry on believing what you want and I'll carry on editing in the topic area until it is fixed. Then I will stop and have time to edit things that interest me. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. That's given me the options of where to take this further, if that seems necessary or useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Why is Race (human classification) so biased? (Mikemikev)

(moved to talkpage) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• A trolling post by Mikemikev was moved from here to an article talk page.[27] [28] As pointed out on WP:ANI, where CU Deskana commented about this community banned user, for the last month or two Mikemikev has been editing from South Korea, where he is currently working. Per the R&I motion about banned users, although his posts may be removed, please do not add them elsewhere. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Move by Seb az86556 obviously done in good faith; has been reverted by Ryulong. WP:SPI filed by myself. NE Ent 14:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  In the future, you should really not just post to the old SPI case page and use the proper template that someone coded up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Too hard. I don't really care. It's a waste of time -- as long as anonymous (IP) editing is a fundamental Wikipedia precept we're gonna have trolls. Was mostly doing as a courtesy to Mathsci (we having a standing disagreement over troll response which I really didn't want to get into here.). Was planning to dump the troll comments off the race page once the SPI signed off on it being a mikemikev; wouldn't have bothered had I known Ryulong was gonna revert the edit. So telling me "really" in the future stuff is a waste of bits. The day I log in at the not WP:BURO pillar is gone I'll just leave. If someone wants to do something useful vis-a-vis SPI filings, I'd suggest add edit notices to the page(s) -- I did look for instructions there but there weren't any. Had there been some template / instructions visible I would've been happy to cut and paste. NE Ent 14:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is easy enough to file SPI reports. There are instructions at the top of the page, The second rubric says, "Submitting an SPI case". Click on there and substitute "Mikemikev" for SOCKMASTER at the next prompt. Then click to open an investigation. At the moment, there are so many Mikemikev ipsocks from Korea, that it is more trouble than it is worth submitting reports. Best just to tag the user pages for future reference as CU Deskana recommended. Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev has no instructions present. NE Ent 23:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That was the wrong place to look. Unresolved SPI reports are all listed on a central page and that requires a common template for the reports. Please click on WP:SPI next time. Wikipedia software is not at fault here. Mathsci (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

The Arbitration Committee has recently been made aware that information posted to its arbcom-l mailing list was inappropriately shared outside of the Committee this month. The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens on November 6 and 7 (UTC), and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. The unauthorized disclosures were reported to the Committee separately by two non-arbitrator candidates in the current Arbitration Committee elections, and our understanding is that other candidates and other editors have also received correspondence repeating some or all of the information.

Arbitrator Elen of the Roads has confirmed that she shared information, including direct quotes from the mailing list, with two non-arbitrators within 24 hours of Jclemens' original posts. This information was subsequently shared with other parties, including at least some of the current candidates. The Committee was made aware of this on November 13. On polling the arbitrators, Elen of the Roads disclosed that she had released a portion of one email to non-arbitrators, and denied sharing any further emails. She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one.

In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee.

Arbitrators supporting this statement: Casliber, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie
Arbitrators recused from voting on this statement: All current candidates (Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad)
Arbitrators inactive on voting on this statement: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

User:Chutznik asking for an unban (basically)

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.

---

Although he had large number of socks in the past he says he has been clean in the mean time, and claims that he complied with WP:OFFER. His unblock request has been pending for a while. I think it's best that this is dealt with by the community. Thoughts? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• A good read of his talk page and the self admitted obsession with creating multiple accounts should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions here. 'Clean' is only becuse he appears to have respected his block, but his arguments for unblock, to me at least, are unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• It's worth waiting to see the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaz0t, as that has an obvious bearing here. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A check user found them unrelated. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also the editor's triumphant tone in declaring his panoply of socks on Wikipedia Review (see the SPI for links), as well as his less celebratory but virtually unrepentant comment about them on his talk page does not lead me to believe that he is trustworthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Lacking any evidence he has not followed the terms of the standard offer, unblock. NE Ent 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not how it works, the standard offer calls for some positive evidence of value and trustworthiness, such as editing on another project, to show that the editor will contribute productively in the future if he is unbanned. If it worked the way you seemed think it does, all any banned editor would have to do is take a 6 month vacation from editing and *bam* they'd be allowed back in automatically. That trvializes the community's difficult decision to ban someone and turns every ban into a de facto 6-month block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:OFFER#The_standard_offer.

The standard offer

It's simple:

1. Wait six months without sockpuppetry.
2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

• The requirement/suggestion to work on another project was removed a long time ago. NE Ent 12:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Then the essay is next to useless, as the only "evidence" we have to go by is the word of the editor involved, who is (obviously) an interested party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note that WP:OFFER is an essay, and one that not all editors agree with (and probably even less do in its watered down version). Fram (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, Chutznik is under the mistaken impression that the offer automatically grants them a review at the end of 6 months, in a sort of "I did my part, now you do yours" type of bargain and the fact that they're fighting tooth and nail for his interpretation to be the interpretation isn't exactly the sort of attitutde that would encourage me to say "sure, let him back in". Blackmane (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Anyone who wants to comment on this unblock might take a look at User talk:Chutznik#Standard offer unblock request. If he would take a break from the legalisms of the unblock process and explain what he intends to do differently in the future, things might be more promising for him. This editor did a lot of good work but also some strange things. A sincere moment of reflection on his past problems would be very welcome. His belief that he should be allowed back until the exact moment that he starts to mess up again is unconvincing. He should explain what he'll do differently so he doesn't mess up again. If he has plans for any content work he should mention that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban - Bans are pointless. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  Are you ever going to explain why they are pointless? And for the record, I don't believe this user is technically banned. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  Regardless of how this discussion ends, we'll have a clear ban situation when this concludes: either we'll end up with an unblock decision, or the community's refusal to permit an unblock will be interpreted as a community ban, per WP:CBAN. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nope We don't need to start all this nonsense all over again. Jtrainor (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the section that EdJohnston linked. These comments indicate that he's not doing this in complete good faith and that an unblock will likely be succeeded by more problems very quickly. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this user has very problematic past and his recent unblock indicates that there is a considerable chance that he will return to his old ways if unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, sure we might say we can always re-ban/block if old behavior resumes, but I'm not sure it's that easy. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the behavior I'm seeing on his talk page. Apologies and prostration are not necessary, but recognizing that it's possible to be wrong and it's useful to listen to other people when they try to help you are. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm reading the unblock request right now and I couldn't stomach half of all those blocky messages he's making. One thing's for sure, he's crying "It's so unfair!" in most of them and the fact that there was a big-wall unblock request a month ago and his rebuttals to Boing!'s rejecting of it doesn't look good for his case. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Archiving my 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.

---

I would like to create archives #6-10 (so that I can archive, and so I would not have to come back here to bother you again. My current archive is full. When I do it, it says I need administrative privileges. Please assist. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm rather confused why this is an issue; perhaps it thinks that you have too many non-alphanumeric characters in these archive names? Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's this line in the global title blacklist, I think:

#URI like page titles
.*[?&]+[^=]+=[^&]+.*

Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is open

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. Users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote. The election will run from November 27 until December 10.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Pillar of Defense

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, Israel casualties and injuries are different in some part of article Operation Pillar of Defense, please correct and match them to each other. I put this request on talk page of this article but nothing happen. --H.b.sh (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No answer? --H.b.sh (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SOFIXIT. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock request from User:Mythdon

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.

---

Indefinitely blocked user Mythdon (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock - see User talk:Mythdon#Block/ban appeal. The history is that Mythdon was banned for six months in September 2009 after Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong, and was indefinitely blocked in March 2010, shortly after that ban expired, for reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#concerns about too much of user:Mythdon on AN.2FI. I have not read this up and express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The guy was entirely clueless and a huge time sink 2-3 years back and managed to get indefinitely blocked on Simple Wikipedia as well. But it WAS 2 years ago, and there was no socking in the mean time that I'm aware of. They also seem to be well aware of what got them banned. I guess WP:OFFER applies.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock - Offer appears to have been fulfilled and we should be more welcoming and less bitey. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As he was advised that WP:BASC was their sole means to an unblock, I'd love to know what they said ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I am following up on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • According to my notes Mythdon's appeal was never denied or granted; I'm not sure if I'm missing any correspondence. Since he's posted an appeal here and we held him up last time I don't see why the community couldn't hear the appeal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• From what I can see here, I was the one who originally referred him to BASC, but as a possible avenue to unblock, not an exclusive one. For whatever reason Mythdon's replies indicate he did not (or thought he somehow could not) go that route. Maybe I am missing something but at the moment I don't see any reason a discussion here would not be an appropriate forum for making a decision as to whether to unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Original quote of FayssalF: "It is time for this account to have an indefinite break from Wikipedia affairs. The last ArbCom issue which involved you dates back to this ban. I see no sign of an improvement. If you want to appeal against this block, please use the appropriate steps that you are aware of. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)" - ergo, he could have gone community route (although, I guess, he wasn't getting through for a community review so he thought BASC was the only way?). Ergo, I think AN/ANI can hear it. (I think this is better as ANI material, though...?) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock- that would have to be the most insightful and in-depth unblock request I have ever seen. I do not think Mythdon will cause any trouble in the future. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock - I agree that the request shows great awareness of why Mythdon was blocked, and gives a positive report of the editor's future intentions. I believe this is a case where "they can always be blocked again" applies, but would advise that the probationary period applied by ArbCom here remain in force for the proscribed 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock per the concerns by Beyond My Ken. This request is very insightful and in depth. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've just received an auto notification via e-mail (thanks to the message by JohnCD at my talkpage). I've been away myself for a long time. But since the notification concerns a case I worked on I decided to log in and participate here. After reading the ban appeal, I say unblock as per Beyond My Ken. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock per a very comprehensive and convincing unblcok request. I do, however, still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Biased posting of Fram in my COI request concerning my own article talk page Frederic Bourdin

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

---

Hello. I know now that it is discouraged to edit an article which is about yourself, but before I knew this, along with many other things I edited the article about me Frederic Bourdin. And I did that honestly, always with the true. Until that day that I got in conflict concerning an edit of my article with the user Bbb23 . At the time because I was mad and it was unfair in my opinion, I got myself blocked for making legal threats and then socking. I, then, asked help to Jimmy Wales, Jimbo talk page as to how to get out of this mess, he showed me the path and now I'm not blocked anymore. He also advised me (Jimbo) to make a COI request to edit my article and that's what I did. But there is a problem, this user Fram who is not neutral because of his involvement with Bbb23 concerning me ( Bbb23 ) asked him his help concerning the problem he had with me), is trying to make my COI request fail with biased speech on my article talk page. I have asked him to refrain from discussing my COI request since he is personally involved but he refuse to do so. He claims that all my reliable sources supporting my COI request should be ignored because, basically, I'm me ((Frederic Bourdin]] Can someone help me with this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing this as you've also posted at ANI. GiantSnowman 13:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Paid Wikipedia editors advertizing on Facebook

I saw an ad for this on my Facebook page a couple of minutes ago: http://www.wikiexperts.us/

The ad reads, "We write, improve, translate, monitor, update and protect Wikipedia profiles." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

One of many companies out there - and unfortunately there's no policy against paid editing. GiantSnowman 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

However, their logo incorporates the "wiki-globe" logo, which is in fact copyrighted. I'm going to find someone from the legal team and let them know about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I let them know a couple of weeks ago - they're pretty overworked right now. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal is well aware of these guys. It's being worked. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it the old "send the, a letter from a lawyer and that should be the end of it" trick didn't work? It usually does in cases like this, but maybe these guys are more the stubborn type. (consider this a rhetorical question, I realize it is unlikely you would post the intimate details of a legal proceeding here) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule"

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.

---

Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ANEW report

I need some help from those more knowledgeable about these sanctions and what discretion admins have to impose extra restrictions on articles (not editors). Apparently, in 2010, User:WGFinley, whom I've contacted but who hasn't been around for a couple of months due to more exciting things in his personal life, imposed an extra restriction on the Golan Heights article that not only limits editors to 1RR (typical) but also requires every content reversion to be explained on the article talk page. Guy added a separate notice to that effect on the talk page and changed the edit notice so editors are also warned when they edit the article.

My first question is can Guy do that? If the answer is yes, how is such a restriction removed? I'm struggling to see what authority an admin has to impose a restriction on an article that doesn't appear to have been supported by the ArbCom decision itself. Imposing it on editors, which has been done, makes sense to me, but much less so on articles. It's a fairly onerous restriction on all editors who edit that article. I seriously doubt it's being followed or that editors are being even-handedly sanctioned for not heeding it, but I haven't researched that. Even assuming we (admins) have the discretion to do such a thing, there must be some guidelines as to when it's appropriate and when it's not. After all, here, it's been in place for over 3 years. Ironically, the editor who's been accused of violating it was at one time under such a restriction as an editor, but that restriction expired (or was lifted).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he can't. That's not the intent of discretionary sanctions -- I'd fix the editnotice if I could but I ain't got the bits for it. NE Ent 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll investigate the specifics, but those sorts of restrictions can sometimes be implemented as a result of AE threads; we did it some months ago at Nagorno-Karabakh. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It was done as arbitration enforcement in this thread. It can be removed via a thread at WP:AE. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Such restrictions have been allowed for some time. Mass killings under Communist regimes was actually placed under article-specific restrictions through AE. The success rate and practicality of these more nuanced restrictions would be another matter for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, ArbCom has been asked several times about such restrictions, and they have, without exception, been seen as valid uses of the discretionary sanctions system. Whether this one would be upheld if appealed to AE or the Committee I do not know, but the idea of article-level sanctions is pretty much been settled. Courcelles 06:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified Guy both on his talk page and by email. He still participates in MedCom mailing list discussions, so I wouldn't be too surprised if he drops by to leave a message. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that; I should have at least notified him on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, let's see if I can crystallize this a bit based on the above comments:

1. Any admin can impose an article-level sanction like the one Guy did.
2. Such a sanction can be appealed to ArbCom.
3. Can an admin remove such a sanction without going to ArbCom, or would that be viewed in the same way as unblocking a user who was sanctioned?
4. Are there any guidelines for imposing such a sanction or for the duration of the sanction?

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard rules governing appeals of AE sanctions apply; you can either go to ArbCom or try to get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to lift the sanction.

There is no special guideline for article-level sanctions that I'm aware of. T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Timotheus, particularly for the link. The lack of a guideline is disturbing because I don't even know how to justify a request to terminate the additional restriction if there's no guideline for its imposition in the first instance. Perhaps a trip to AE will clarify some of these problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• The discretionary sanction authorization states "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working" (emphasis mine). It does not say an uninvolved administrator can make up new rules for a page.
• The procedures say "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" -- is there any evidence this was done?
• A cursory review of article history and talk history shows the "must use talk page" restriction is clearly not being followed. Drawing a line in the sand and then not enforcing breeds contempt, not respect. And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions clearly states it can be overturned by consensus here (WP:AN).
• Given the widespread ignoring of the restriction, how can an editor reasonably file a AE request for enforcement without running afoul of the "unclean hands" warning at AE? NE Ent 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Ent, I tend to agree with everything you've said, although I confess that I haven't macheted my way through the thicket of policy, practice, arbitration decisions, etc. What enforcement action would we be overturning if we had a consensus here? Guy's? If so, Timotheus already made that point. Perhaps seeking clarification would be a better way to go. I'm musing as much as anything because connecting the dots in these things gives me a headache.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will say that one of the biggest problems with this sanction has been editors pushing for enforcement without clearly notifying the party violating the restriction. Nowhere do I see that Gilabrand was ever made aware of this article-specific restriction. However, Gilabrand does appear to have violated the standard ARBPIA 1RR on another article ([29] [30]).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• In theory, one doesn't have to be specifically warned. That said, it is on the article talk page, just as the other restrictions are, and it pops up in an edit notice box when you edit the article, meaning there is as much warning as there is for the 1RR restriction itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• The edit notice isn't markedly different from the standard 1RR edit notice. Editors who are already aware of the 1RR are likely to ignore the notice, thinking it is just the standard one. Personally, I find that quite a lot of editors tend to not pay attention to edit notices. My view is that such notices should not be taken the same as a user talk page notification, which is much less likely to be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gilabrand personally received a notice with the rules:[31]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did not see that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness is a walking historical reference for this stuff. It's impressive and almost scary. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• In any event, based on your allegations that Gilabrand violated 1RR elsewhere, I have notified them of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Having read some twenty line truth table edit notices on user talk pages -- If it's Tuesday and it's about an image, I'll reply on your page, but on Wednesday ... -- I pretty much ignore them. NE Ent 22:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, looking further, it seems Gilabrand has been previously sanctioned in a very similar fashion and has been notified of the specific restriction on the Golan Heights article, in addition to recently violating 1RR on another article. I think maybe this should have been taken to AE given that the article-specific restriction is not a simple 1RR, but there does appear to be sufficient cause for action against Gilabrand. Any administrator reviewing this discussion could take action per the discretionary sanctions.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a fairly technical reading of the discretionary sanctions provisions that allows such sanctions, as explained in Kirill's comment in this old request for clarification.

  Sanctions like this are usually lifted either when they are no longer necessary or if they have proven unworkable.

  I'd prefer any complaint against Gilabrand to be filed at AE so that we have a more orderly presentation than this mess of a thread. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• However in the same thread Risker notes "Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely" and Carcharoth noted "articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely," As the restriction is two years old it's reasonable to address whether the sanction should remain in place. NE Ent 02:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• It might be worth noting that the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions does allow "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" which does not require as much of a technical stretch of the older wording. That said, Risker's caveat that it is wise to periodically review article-level sanctions for continued relevance is also appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any admins that wish to monitor the discussion requirement at Talk:Golan Heights? At present the complete edit notice says:

In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.

Though I see no problem with this being a valid restriction which an admin could impose under discretionary sanctions, I'm not sure it is doing any good. People keep forgetting that this restriction exists. Why not abolish it for now. A consensus here (of uninvolved editors) could lift the restriction. Any admin could reimpose it in the future if they are persuaded there is a need. AE retains plenty of authority to deal with edit-warring at Golan Heights if it is found to be a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't find the ArbCom clarification decision on the Armenian article to be very satisfying. Although the arbitrators discuss the 1RR restriction imposed by the admin (back in 2008 - the decision was in 2010), it was not just a 1RR restriction but also a requirement, as in the Golan Heights article, that any reverter explain their revert on the talk page. Yet the arbitrators don't mention that. In addition, although there is a "warning" on the article talk page, the edit notice on the Armenian article doesn't include a warning about the explanation requirement. And those restrictions have now been in place for 4 years - has anyone even checked whether the talk page explanation requirement is being enforced?

I agree with Ed. We should remove the explanation restriction imposed at Golan Heights. There seems to be no current justification for it, and enforcement appears to be completely uneven. I do a lot of closures at ANEW, and I'm not at all happy with the inherent unfairness of blocking one editor for failing to explain, yet allowing so many other editors to do the same thing but not be sanctioned. It's already hard enough looking through the edit history of these articles, which is often heavy, because I don't look just at the conduct of the person reported but at the conduct of other editors as well (that's typical in any ANEW report).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Ed that we should remove the explanation restriction as no longer being necessary or reasonable to maintain the article's integrity. MBisanz ^talk 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to lift Golan Heights restriction

The restriction on the Golan Heights article requiring that editors explain reverts on the talk page is lifted. General 1RR restriction on article imposed by the ARBPIA case is unaffected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support There are no edit wars there so its not necessary.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support as above. Note that User:EdJohnston and User:Mbisanz appear to support removal of the restriction.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comments above.NE Ent 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In this thread, nobody has spoken up in favor of retaining the restriction, so it looks like it will be lifted. Unless some hitherto uninvolved admin wants to come by and declare the sense of this thread I will enact a closure in a few hours. The wording of the restriction is given in the box above, and it applies only to the Golan Heights article. Currently the restriction forces all reverts to be discussed on the Talk page. That discussion requirement is to be lifted but the 1RR remains in effect, since it applies to all of the ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I did what Ed said he planned to do. For clarity and in case I forgot something, this is what I did: (1) I removed the discussion restriction on the talk page of the article; (2) I changed the editnotice to remove the discussion requirement; and (3) I logged what I did at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I will now close this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Question

Hello. I'm not sure this is the right and proper place for this question but I don't know where else to go. I have been editing Wikipedia since January 2005 under my username. I have never had an unmanageable problem with anyone. I find myself in a tough spot with User:Yankees76. I had questioned his intentions on deleting some Further Reading references in the Invicta Watch Group article. I admit to being a bit miffed by the unilateral deletes of the material he labeled as "link spam" which it wasn't. I left a message on Yankees76 talk page. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees76&oldid=525153902#IWG. I also asked for guidance from a longtime Wikipedia admin I've asked before, User:SchuminWeb on his talk page. He said the links in this case were probably not okay and I then thanked him (Schumin) and left a message on Yankees76 talk page, saying that I took his point and thanks. That's where I expected it to end. Instead, it feels like User:Yankees76 is following me around on Wikipedia and also interjecting what seems to be vitriolic comments in my discussion with Schumin on his talk page.

And Yankee76's original comment on his talk page to me after I said I took his point and thanks.

Go away. I don't appreciate the tone of your comments here, nor do I appreciate having my edits questioned on an administrators talk page without even the opportunity to defend or discuss them first on the articles talk page. Much the same way I didn't report you to WP:ANI for posting link spam (where at least you would have been notified that you were the subject of discussion - something you failed to afford me); you should not be running to administrators every time someone undoes an edit you make. I would suggest you read WP:AGF before interacting with other editors on Wikipedia in the future.

With regards to the edits themselves, the edit comments were not directed at any one editor - they're an explanation of why the material was removed for future editors so they're not added back. There was no "tone". If I wanted to communicate with YOU specifically about your edits and warn you about posting WP:LINKSPAM, I'd have left a note on your talk page.

The first two links that I removed are links to a forum discussion which does not pass WP:ELNO (see Links normally to be avoided #10). Also forums without editorial oversight are not considered reliable sources, so there is no reason for them to be included in the article. The third link is a press release/media kit that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Note that there's already an external link to the official Invicta website, which features much of, if not all of the same information. While "Further Reading" may have a place in articles to direct readers to additional published literature on the subject, a "Further Reading" headline should not be used as an tool to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on posting link spam.

I'll give you a day to read this before I remove this pointless conversation. If you have any further issues with the article or edits made to it, please start a discussion on that article's talk page. Don't post here again. --Yankees76 Talk 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider this later comment interjected by Yankees76 on Schumin's talk page after I considered the matter closed.

• "Oh sorry, the full response is actually this link.[1] Wikiklrsc if you're going to continue this and fabricate to your administrative handler how I made "threats" to you, you should probably link the full response. Either way I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this (your links are not going back on the article, and I'm not going to get blocked for my response to you on my talk page), so posting here and continuing this little show that you've got going on, even after I called you out for doing so (my "bad reaction"), does not show alot of integrity on your part. --Yankees76 Talk 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)"

He said Ben Schumin is my "administrative handler"? And that he (Yankees76) "called me out"? A bit too much. I hadn't done anything wrong to be "called out" whatever that idiom actually means in this context.

Can this be made to stop? I just want to get back to my quiet editing on Wikipedia. But I feel threatened by this editor. Maybe I've just never been exposed to this kind of serious pointed assaults in my seven years on Wikipedia and so I'm unduly caught by surprise by an everyday event.

Might you please advise me on how to get this person off my back for unjust reasons? It's feeling a lot like harassment to me.

If I'm wrong in this matter, I'll take it as a lesson.

Thanks in advance. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll make this short since I'm not really into wasting administrator time over pointless squabbles.

1) I removed a number of spam links to a web forum that were posted on the Invicta Watch Group article.[32]

2) I receive a number of notes on my talk page from another editor (Wikiklrsc) with whom I've never interacted with chastising me for the "tone" (whatever that means) of my edits, stating (incorrectly) that the links were not spam all while attempting to intimidate me by touting their own long editing history and how my "presumptions and unilateral removals were a bit off-kilter". A quick look through their editing history finds that this user has subsequently complained to an administrator that he/she has dealt with in the past, is on a first name basis with, and who is also under investigation for acting unilaterally without consensus and misapplying policy[33] (I sense a theme here). They post on User talk:SchuminWeb questioning my actions without 1) starting a discussion on the article's talk page or 2) affording me an opportunity to discuss my edits or address any of the inflammatory statements on my own talk page. The post on the administrators page was more about the contributor and not the content. Clearly this is not an assumption of good faith, as I never accused this particular user of even posting the links in the first place, nor did I post any sort of warning or comment on his or any other editors or administrators talk page about him/her posting the removed links.

3) I explain this to Wikiklrsc responding on my talk page (see above), and note my displeasure at his/her accusatory tone on my talk page - commenting on contributors and not content, and without even offering one reason why the edit was wrong - and I called him/her out for their subversive behavior by involving Wikipedia adminstration without even attempting to work towards a consensus on the article's talk page, which is standard protocol that any long-standing editor would be aware of. I also ask Wikiklrsc to take further issues up on the article's talk page, and not mine. After 24 hours to allow the user to view the comments and understand them, I then remove both his and my comments from my talk page assuming the issue is closed. In the meantime, the administrator, User:SchuminWeb, confirms that the links did not belong on the article. (As it turns out the spam links were added by Wikiklrsc)

4) Anyways, after removing the discussion and assuming the issue has been dropped, I notice that Wikiklrsc continues to press the issue and posts what I'm now considering personal attacks on SchuminWeb's talk page [34] claiming I made threats toward him/her - which is a total fabrication (and a WP:NPA). Wikiklrsc even went so far as to post an outdated link to my reply on my talk page - , not to the final comment I posted [35] no, but instead to an earlier version that was incomplete.[36], unfairly representing my situation - all while continuing to focus on the editor, and not the edits. Why he did this, other than to further draw my ire is unknown. If they considered the matter closed as was stated above, why even bother with that post in the first place? In retrospect, it appears to me he was just looking to escalate the issue, and I should have simply not "fed the troll". My error.

5) And now this - accusing me of stalking them? Stalking him would mean I'm following him around numerous articles and being disruptive. This accusation is ridiculous. Take a look at this editors contributions over the last few days - they have been mostly confined to this subject/"dispute", while I've contributed to numerous other articles and moved on. This is not stalking. In fact, I should be asking Wikipedia administrators to ask this editor to "stop", and to stop harassing me on other users talk pages; and perhaps even warn or further educate them about adding spam links, for not assuming good faith or working towards a consensus, and for continued harassment of another editor.

In conclusion, I don't wish the deal with this particular editor, I especially don't want them spamming my talk page with ludicrous statements about my "tone" when removing obvious spam (or posting there even after I ask them to not post there in the future). Simple as that. I removed 2 spam links to web forums that were posted in an article, and another link that was redundant. I explained why. These types of reactions from over-zealous editors who's content is removed or edited are one reason why numerous contributors to Wikipedia simply don't bother removing sub-par material or material that doesn't meet Wikiedpia guidelines. It's not worth the hassle. This is my last comment on the situation. Wikiklrsc, leave me alone. --Yankees76 ^Talk 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I dispute some of the above but if user Yankees76 will just go away and leave me alone to do editing, so be it. I never thought I'd ever have to say something like this, but in this case, it's justified. I stand by my editing record since January 2005. And my percentage of editing talk pages is very low indeed. I'm interested in adding knowledge and keeping Wikipedia spot on, in articles, not chatting about it.

I would appreciate some unbiased comment on this matter or where the appropriate place to have put this request if not here -- which I don't consider pointless unless otherwise advised by a third party. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand the purpose of article talkpages: they are never to chat about the subject - they are there to discuss changes to the article, and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for the possible changes. As per WP:BRD, if you add something and someone removes it, you need to go to the talkpage to discuss the addition/removal. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Music group more important than protocol, satellite, cpu feature etc..?

Howcome the pop group SMAP takes precedence over all other articles with the same acronym? we had the same problem a few years ago when the fanboys of Canadian football league refused to let go of the "CFL" namespace. Is there any rule that entertainment is more important than anything else? Electron9 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the most notable item by that name, considering its length is longer than the other two actual articles (the third thing is a redirect) combined, it predates all three other pages' creations, and its subject is the only one that solely goes by the name "SMAP". One has to question why you brought it up on AN rather than raising the issue on the article's talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually and more importantly, you were WP:BOLD and made a move. It was reverted, and in the edit summary for the move is said "use WP:RM". That's how WP:CONSENSUS works - it's now up to you to argue your point on the article talkpage to create consensus for the move (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not notice that. But yes, consensus currently states that the page located at "SMAP" should be about the music group so if you wish to change that you need to do as Bwilkins states.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary protection

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates is protected contrary to policy; see prior discussion Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#protection.3F and Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#24_November_2012. Could somebody unprotect, or, actually give a policy based rationale for its protection? NE Ent 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a thread about this on another talk page already? (Which I think you linked to.) Why the need for another venue? - jc37 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion died there. NE Ent 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really die. It served its purpose and concluded. It would seem you just don't like the outcome. The page will likely be unprotected after the election. Until then, it can stay. Has been done this way a while. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

High-visibility page. Important to an ongoing, time-limited, wikipolitically-sensitive process. No good reason for non-admins (or, really, admins, except under very limited circumstances) to make any modifications. Not an article or talk page. The lack of previous vandalism doesn't negate the value of preventive protection; even one instance of serious vandalism could affect the (perceived) integrity of the election process. I own a fire extinguisher, even though I don't plan to need it.

Beats me if some or all or any of those are explicitly within the word of the policy, but they're all in the spirit. Do you have a good common sense reason to unprotect, or are you just stirring the pot? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that is beyond the explicit scope of the protection policy. For reference, last year, afaik, the only page we protected was the official questions page, and that was because we wanted to make sure that the same version was transcluded for each candidate, also not strictly speaking within the scope of the policy. Monty₈₄₅ 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation here, but I'd suggest that drawing attention to the page here, and asking for protection to be removed, is a sure-fire way to ensure that the page will be vandalised if it is unprotected... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think protection is appropriate here. There are 3 necessary questions which need to be asked in determining this for any page:

1. Would Wikipedia gain anything from non-admins editing the page? In this case, clearly not. No one should be eiting it.
2. Would limiting who can edit the page scare away potential users? No way; anyone who knows enough to find this page, unless sent there for disruptive purposes, is probably familiar enough with Wikipedia to understand that this page's integrety needs to be kept.
3. Would there be any harm to Wikipedia, its articles or its community if the page is edited disruptively? Here, the answer is yes; the integrety of te election depends on it.

Since questions 1 and 2 show no reason for not protecting the page, and question 3 gives a reason for protection, the page should definitely be protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The 1 necessary question which should be asked is -- is the protection consistent with policy? Obviously not. With regards to Od Mishehu's strawman questions:

1. Review of past year's pages show sporadic maintenance edits, e.g. category changes. No reason why that should require an editor with a sysop bit.
2. The issue is the continued spread of protection-itis -- we've see it with talk pages of blocked users, templates with lots of transclusions, templates with few transclusions -- where does it stop? Is the written policy a quaint anachronism, and the real policy -- if we can't up with a reason a peon editor should edit it, no harm done?
3. Integrity of the election? Absurd, voters cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259. -- does editing the candidate page change the contents of the voting page?

When I inquired at the talk page, the justification given was a. there wouldn't be any need to protect it, and b. it was standard operating procedure. Review of past year's pages shows both reasons to be untrue. I was just wondering if anyone could come up with a reasonable explanation consistent with written policy and the anyone can edit meme of Wikipedia. I'm disappointed but unfortunately not surprised no one has thus far. NE Ent 00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So no specific reason why it should be unprotected then, beyond the usual 'slippery slope' fallacy... As for your suggestion that editing the page couldn't affect the integrity of the election, supposing someone vandalised it by adding negative material to a candidate's statement? In any case, 'anyone can edit' may be a meme, but it sure as hell isn't policy - we restrict editing all the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Supposing someone vandalism the candidate's question page? e.g. There aren't protected. Does that affect the integrity of the election? NE Ent 22:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No NE Ent, that's not the "1 necessary question", and I'm disappointed to see you framing the situation that way. If you need a policy, please refer to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." Or, for that matter, WP:POLICY: "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken." I'll ask again—do you have a good common sense reason to unprotect, or are you just stirring the pot? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal E-mails as sources

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's a bit of an ongoing dispute on the verifiability of using e-mails as sources. I've put my post on WP:IRS below. Any info would be great! Thanks!

I'm running into a dilemma on an edit and I need guidance. There's an update I'm working on and the data is a little nebulous; sort of a "everyone knows it but no one can confirm it" situation. So I e-mail one of the people involved, and they give me confirmation that the data is in fact true.

However, I'm getting alot of people saying "You could be lying about the e-mail". Okay, I'm reluctant to share personal messages but I paste the text into the talk page. Now people are saying "You could have made that text up". So here I have an e-mail from the person who the edit is actually about, confirming the edit as true, yet I have no certifiable way of proving it. What's the best way to translate this into a Wiki-quality source? Does WP:AGF come into play here? Thanks! --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's already well-known and held that e-mails are not a WP:RS ... no need to reconfirm it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• No, emails cannot be used as sources. If the information in question is not covered by a publicly-available reliable source, it cannot go in the article. Part of the problem, as the people on the talk page have apparently pointed out, is that there is no way to verify that what you say is true. And though I'm sure you're acting in good faith and are indeed telling the truth, there's no way we can just accept people's word for factual claims - we'd have to believe the liars as well as the honest folk. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Link to discussion. As far as your "best way" question — the best way is probably to ask Dubuk to mention this fact on her blog. Something like this is one of the rather few exceptions to the prohibition on using self-published sources, since an artist saying "I made fictional character ___ to look like ___" can be trusted to tell the truth. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Think about yourself in relation to the world. If someone whom you knew solely as "Uncle G" on a WWW site told you that xe had personal private correspondence proving some point or other, but that you'd have to take xem solely at xyr word on what the correspondence said, would you accept that as reliable, published, documentation? Wikipedia is about what can be proved accurate through reference to knowledge that identifiable people attempting to document things accurately and truthfully have properly researched, nailed down, and published. You're nothing more than an unknown person with a pseudonym on a WWW site. Readers don't trust you. You need to go back to the very basics of our verifiability and no original research policies. If you want a hitherto unpublished and unknown fact to be in the encyclopaedia, you need to make it known through the proper route of getting it documented, by identifiable people with known and good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and published outwith the encyclopaedia beforehand. Or, as a pseudonymous and untrustable encyclopaedist, you need to show where that has already been done somewhere. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the sound advice Uncle G has just given above, I'm sure you made your edits with the best of intentions, and you're trying to improve the encyclopaedia, but this argument stems from you adding a half-sentence ancillary fact. It probably isn't as important as you might think it is. We can still read about Cave Johnson and find out about him from what is already reliably sourced in the article. Might as well let it go, don't you think? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. I think my mistake was assuming my edit would be as easy at the one I made earlier about Bill Fletcher being Cave Johnson. That one seemed easy and was accepted quickly, but when this one was contested so vigorously I started feeling put-upon, like there was a WP:CABAL at work. But in this case there's no real published work attesting to Caroline being based on Laura Dubuk. I'm taking Nyttend's advice and ask her to place a small mention of it on her blog to act as official published Valve verification. Until then I'll just chill. :) Thanks for the insight guys. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there ... it appearing on a blog will also not neccessarily be considered to be a reliable source - even if it's their own blog! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay now I'm confused. The reference to Bill Fletcher being Cave Johnson was also from a blog. This could turn into a slippery slope. Guidance on this guys? Can you hash this out with Nyttend? SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If the artist Phil Foglio says on his own blog that he based the physical appearance of his character Buck Godot on his friend John Buckley, the blog is a reliable source. If I post on my blog that the character Comic Book Guy was based on Matt Groening seeing me in an airport one time, that is not a reliable source (and also not true; but John Buckley really did look sorta like that when I knew him and Foglio: yet since I'm not Phil, I'm not a reliable source for that assertion). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike and I are thinking precisely the same thing. I based what I said on WP:SELFPUB, which permits limited use of self-published sources to talk about those sources' authors. Almost any source, no matter how silly and trifling, can be used as a source about itself and its author, as long as we can confirm that it's written by who it says it is. Back to UncleG's point: we won't believe a random person on the Internet who says "I got told this in an email", but when we say "The author says that she based Caroline on Laura Dubuk" and reference that to something the author has said, we're going to believe it, since nobody's more authoritative about the author's opinions than the author herself. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was going by. I'll add a ref once she makes her post. SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Move from Wikipedia:Lady Gabriella Windsor to Lady Gabriella Windsor

Can someone please fix this? A user moved it from the main namespace to Wikipedia:The Lady Gabriella Windsor in order to avoid having to request a move to The Lady Gabriella Windsor, and I then moved it to the present tile without realising it was still not in the main namespace. (I'm not sure if I am at the right place and I apologise if I am not.) Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And tidied up by me. I have move-protected the article for a month - everyone should go away and discuss it properly at WP:RM to get in more people, who might hopefully know what the Wikipedia naming convention is for such people (which may or may not be the same as what the Royal Family website calls them, of course). Bencherlite^Talk 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Autoblock

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I figured Id get the fastest response here. I have evidently been caught in an autoblock related to a sockpuppeteer. Haven’t a clue how it happened, but this is what I see when I try to edit a page (while logged in through my standard internet connection -- I had to log in through a proxy in order to post this message). The *appeal* function sounds like its for anonymous users only, so I’m not sure what I’m meant to do. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the blocked editor made an edit using the same IP you were using at 00:35, which triggered the autoblock when you attempted to edit at 00:37. WP:ABK is the place to go, but you will want to have a good explanation for the close together edits. If I were you, I'd be making sure my network is secure... --Tgeairn (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You should use the {{Unblock-auto}} template on your talk page. Legoktm (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Evan's noted on his talk page that he has a dynamic IP address (Google Maps keeps thinking that he's in lots of different places where he doesn't live), so I'm sure that this is what happened. Before he said that, I gave him IP block exemption, since he's a longstanding member of the community (been here since early 2010) who was obviously being blocked innocently. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin smoke signals needed

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) deleted Template:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes with the explanation that it was T3: Unused, redundant template. It was neither unused nor redundant. The first instruction at WP:DRV says "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first", which is difficult if he is ignoring me. I thought one of you admins might call his attention to a ridiculous deletion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So take it to DRV since he made it quite obvious he doesn't want to discuss it (with you anyway). Tijfo098 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. A contested speedy (not for urgent things like attacks or copyvios) is better served with undeletion and TfD if necessary. The template was not unused, but has a lot of redundancy with another one. Some solution for this can be discussed, but refusing even to give an explanation for a deletion is not the best way to handle this. If this had been posted at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, it would normally have been restored, so I see no reason not to do the same here. Fram (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Schumin. Would be interesting to hear why he's ignoring seemingly valid concerns from a number of editors. GiantSnowman 08:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the massive dispute at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25, this will probably land at ArbCom as NFCC round n+1. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic response to my AN notification on his talk page... GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear about this; the template deletion/undeletion has nothing to do with NFCC. There may or may not be a more general problem with this admins recent deletions, but that's the only link between the NFCC ones and this one. Fram (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems we have an issue of WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." This administrator has ignored calls to explain themselves on two different deletions with different editors. Do we need to proceed to an WP:RFC/U?--v/r - TP 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram, thanks. I had been hoping for an undelete all along. I just thought that with two requests for reconsideration, he might do it himelf. My part in the issue is not such that I would want to lead an RFC. Since 5 of the 8 (7 of 10 if you count the title) links are redundant with {{Anita Loos}}, I understand that upon a quick review, an admin tasked with deleting a ton of stuff might mistakenly speedy this template. I will WP:AGF in regard to his intention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While a deletion may be a mistake (we've all made them!), ignoring the concerns is not. TParis, I agree that RFCU is a good route to go down. GiantSnowman 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Admins closing as Delete even when the deletion discussion has a clear Keep consensus?. GiantSnowman 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have re-added the notification to here on Schumin's talk page. How he responds will influence whether to endorse his opinion or that of those posting above. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'd previously seen him do exactly the same thing with another improperly deleted page - delete, move on, repeatedly ignore queries. I'm happy to co-sign an RfC into this. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Let's see if he provides any answers in the morning (22:30 UK time!). GiantSnowman 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• If this admin is deleting image files against clear community consensus to retain them in the cases being made reference to here it should be understood that this admin has a long history of engaging in this practice often resulting in these deletions being reversed after a review is requested. This admin also has a history of arbitrarily removing long standing "non-free" images from articles even though they have been correctly justified and provided with complete conforming rationales for their use. After unilaterally removing the image files, the admin also usually then immediately deletes the images themselves without going through the normal community review process on the specious grounds that they are "orphaned" non-free files. These practices are contrary to both the spirit and letter of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• His methods and, um, highly personal theories have been a problem for years, as I commented in the DRV. At the very least he should be forbidden from deleting images himself and from using methods for getting them deleted that bypass explicit review. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I also had a problem with one of his recent image closes, not only on the merits of the close itself but with his failure to give me a meaningful response. The discussion on his talk page is now archived here; the FFD in question is here. postdlf (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was rather surprised at this particular close. The nominator brought forward a new reason against the deletion rationale. I was the only person saying "delete" but stated my !vote was non-policy-based. More importantly, the curtailed discussion was unsatisfactory. I felt on a previous occasion I had been treated similarly.[37] Thincat (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate that SchuminWeb may be feeling a little beat up on here, but in order to stave off an RfCU I really think he needs to stop by here and address these concerns. The response so far is not ideal; I hope he reconsiders. I'd love to have him stick around here helping with admin tasks, but the accountability thing is not optional. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed - his comment that "Apparently this has brought every person with whom I've ever disagreed in nearly eight years here out of the woodwork" is ridiculous; I can't speak for anyone else but I don't ever think I've ever interacted with SW before. It seems like a way of deflecting valid criticism. GiantSnowman 10:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have spelled it out as best I can. I really can't do any more than that - I fully predict that if this gets to RfCU, he'll feel trapped in a corner and - boom - we've lost another good editor :-( (though I'm willing to be proved wrong on that one) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• All he has to do is to explain himself here - he has failed to respond. If that continues, RFCU will be the only option. GiantSnowman 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate what you're saying, but think a few moves ahead and put yourself in his shoes for a minute. He's done lots of edits that he sincerely believes are within policy and within good faith, and is suffering from editor fatigue. Do you honestly think that if you file a RfCU against him, he won't say "stuff this for a game of soldiers, I'm off" and leave the project? The relevant deletion review is still active - let's wait and see what the result of that is before acting in haste. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• If there are genuine concerns regarding an editor behaviour that give rise to a valid WP:RFC/U filling, then it should be filed. Otherwise every problem editors who are having their conduct questioned can just threaten to leave the project to stop any complaints in its track. -- KTC (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Ritchie, I don't want to lose an editor or an admin either, but I'm not willing to accept an "if you criticize me I'll leave" ultimatum from an administrator either. We simply have to hold admins to a certain standard of accountability, even if they find that annoying sometimes. If this were the first time he'd alluded to taking a break in the face of concerns about his admin behavior, that would be one thing, but it's not. I don't think he's a bad guy or anything, he just needs to engage with legitimate concerns and hopefully indicate he understands what people are telling him. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think there's a bit of confusion over what I meant. I'm not talking about threatening to leave, I'm talking about actually leaving. As in, he voluntarily hands in his bit, gets desysopped, and puts {{retired}} on his page. The past precedent for this (amongst others) is EncycloPetey (talk · contribs), who, on failure to justify WP:INVOLVED, elected to leave WP and lost his bit in the process. To be honest, I see SchuminWeb's point of view - WP:FFD has a slightly different emphasis to WP:AfD as non-free files are in direct conflict with Wikipedia's pillar of free content, so cases for keeping them have to be watertight. Mind you, here Schumin wrote "I made a decision to close a large number of deletion discussions as delete that I knew would be unpopular because they're about people's precious television shows" so he really should have expected blowback on that, and responded to it, otherwise it's a somewhat misguided move. He could have just !voted delete as an editor and got an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I hear you, and I don't want to see him leave either, but if our only choice is to sweep legitimate concerns under the rug out of fear he might quit, that doesn't really leave us in a tenable position. 28bytes (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would simply like the record to show that my only interaction with this admin regarding deletion has been civil and productive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking from my own experience as an editor and as an admin who has been involved in the project for close to a decade, it's an important responsibility to realize when it's time to take a break (whether from a particular area or from the project as a whole) because you're getting too personally worked up, and/or getting others too personally worked up. It's certainly nothing new for NFC issues to be contentious and emotional, so that kind of self-awareness and self-restraint is especially needed if you're going to work in that area. postdlf (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted closure [38]. Purpose of this board includes discussion of administration methods, -- that does not imply every discussion must result in an administrative action. NE Ent 22:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what forcing this back open (without even bothering to inform me you had undone what I consider an administrative action) is intended to accomplish? No formal sanction is even proposed, the subject of the discussion is not participating, the disputed actions are being discussed elsewhere. As I indicated in my close RFC/U is an appropriate forum if prolonged discussion of these issues is needed. What is the purpose of re-opening this? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't force anything, I edited. It's not an administrative action. You don't know whether the participant is reading the thread or not, and the more users to go on record as expressing their disapproval the more powerful the message will be; therefore the purpose is to allow discussion to continue to see if anyone has anything else to say -- if they don't, the bot will get to it soon enough. The more appropriate question is what basis was there for Beeblebrox deciding the conversation was over? NE Ent 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Adminstrative actions that have been performed on the basis of a consensus, after due process, should not be reversible without a process of their own (which is why you need a DRV to reverse an AfD closure). But administrative actions performed unilaterally, on the basis of the administrator's personal opinion carry no more weight or authority than actions by any other editor. Such actions can be reversed by any editor. So NE Ent's reversing of the close was reasonable in all the circumstances. If another administrator re-closes it, of course, then NE Ent ought to leave it alone, but I would hope that our admin corps will be capable of seeing the benefits of letting users have their say.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Another example of SchuminWeb ignoring queries about his admin actions occurred regarding Chagos Islands national football team, undeleted at WP:REFUND only to be speedy deleted WP:CSD#G4. I feel this is either a shocking misapplication of policy (using G4 to delete an page that had been deliberately undeleted) or gross negligence (failing to even check the logs), but the undeleting admin refused to wheelwar and referred the user to SchuminWeb's talk page. The appeal there went unanswered. Kilopi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. An administrator had acknowledged the previous AfDs and determined that the consensus to delete was obsolete. The speedy re-deletion is outrageous. This is either gross incompetence or patent abuse (and I've restored it. It was restored reasonably and according to process; the same clearly cannot be said about its deletion, particularly when any attempt at discussion is refused. Swarm ^X 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

RFCU

• I think the re-opening of this thread is a good thing - not to discuss this any further here, but for editors to open the RFCU that is so clearly needed. Any volunteers? I would do so myself but will probably be busy over the weekend. GiantSnowman 15:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also busy, but happy to draft/endorse. I'll be free from Sunday evening onwards. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please also address the wheel warring perpetrated by admin. " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASchuminWeb&diff=525036801&oldid=524859432" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.18.197 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the other merits to that discussion, your link does not provide evidence of a WP:WHEEL violation. He took an administrative action, it was reversed. The Wheel violation would occur on the 3rd action, which did not occur. Monty₈₄₅ 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it did. He deleted several images, I restored them, and he promptly re-deleted them. Images are File:Bart's Comet.png, File:The office grief counseling.png, File:Carride.jpg, File:Andy checking phone on stage.jpg, File:Office sabre2.jpeg, File:Office scott's tots.jpg, File:Jimchuck teststore.jpg, and File:Office st patricks day.jpeg. Several people objected at my talk page that I'd undeleted them while they were at DRV, but I wouldn't have done that had I known; I learned that they were at DRV only from the objections at my talk page. See the "I think you crossed a line with your image undeletions" and "Thanks and FYI" sections at my talk page, as well as my response at the "FFD closures" section of User talk:Lexein. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift a topic ban

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

---

This is a request to lift the indefinite topic ban that is currently imposed on me (User:Alan Liefting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) on non-mainspace category related edits. The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Topic ban for Alan Liefting and it attracted eight editors in support of a topic ban. Of those editors three used the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum and one gave no supporting arguments. That leaves four remaining !votes:

• GiantSnowman based his/her !vote on the fact that I am removing categories from AfC pages that are present in content categories. She/he then proceeded to block me, calling it is disruptive editing. It is utterly ludicrous to describe the clean up of polluted categories as disruptive.

• Andy Dingley suggested a wider topic ban than the one suggested. I am certain that Andy's !vote is coloured by a disagreement that we have had in the past on categorisation related edits. Interestingly, from what I read here he is supportive of some of the edits that actually caused the escalation of this issue.

• Arthur Rubin based his !vote on previous discussions and the reasoning is unclear to me. He did not actually describe his concerns in the topic ban discussion (I hope the closing admin did due diligence and followed all the previous convoluted discussions!). Arthur had blocked me at one point for "Disruptive editing: Specifically, removing categories from AfC pages, rather than quoting them." To me, as well as others, it seems to be a very petty and heavy handed use of what is a very powerful admin tool.

• postdlf has supported the ban saying that I am ignoring a "clearly demonstrated consensus" and cited an RfC in which I failed to get a guideline established based on what is done by convention. In the absence of policy or guideline what is wrong with editing to what is done by convention? To his/her credit postdlf has made attempts to resolve the issue, including talk page discussions and partaking in a proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories that I had instigated.

It seems most of the editors involved with having the topic ban being imposed on me fail to see some of the unwritten conventions with respect to categorisation. If editors drill down from Category:Fundamental categories and Category:Main topic classifications (of which none of their subcategories have any images) it is easy to see that images are not included in content categories. My contentious category editing, described as "disruptive" by some, is simply done to the prevailing convention, to ensure consistency, and to benefit the reader.

Note that prior to having the topic ban placed on me a huge amount of my editing was focussed on categorisation. That, coupled with my high edit count inevitably led to differences of opinion and these differences are but a small part of my editing history. Additionally, categories are not visited as often as articles, and image pages probably even less so. I have now wasted a huge amount of time and energy in defending myself on this issue with absolutely no benefit to the project. We are volunteers but that does not mean that our time and energy can be wasted. We should also put things into context - cost-benefit analysis and all that.

Fram, the nominator of the topic ban, apparently has a prediliction for hounding some of the high edit count editors. See this and this. Fram's actions, coupled with my talk page stalkers and the bad blood between myself and a few editors appears to have escalated the issue. Also, in the case of the edits mentioned in the nomination I don't understand why the WP:BRD process was not used. And given that Fram expressed some uncertainty on the reason for my edits in the nomination trotting off to WP:AN is very poor form.

Given the foregoing rationale I argue that the topic ban is based on poor decision making and it does nothing to assist with building Wikipedia. I would also like to point out that I am on occasion asked for guidance on category related edits by editors who find the categorisation of pages a bit confusing. This should surely indicate that I am seen as somewhat of an expert on categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Given the frequency of his appeals to this ban I propose that Alan be prohibited from posting further appeals for a period of six months, and limited to one request for lifting it every three months thereafter. Failure to abide by these restrictions would result in escalating blocks, as with the original ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. The initial ban was in fact based on consensus, and that consensus was upheld the last it was appealed by Alan. While he is free to disagree with the ban, he does need to just accept it and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So how many times have I appealed the topic ban?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You just had an appeal denied a few weeks ago [39] and you have been blocked a few times for violating it. This kind of WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I had completely forgot about that appeal. I think this whole messy issue is making my brain go soft. Maybe I should seek another venue? Or would that smack too much of forum shopping? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would. This is an entirely appropriate venue, the problem is the brief time frame between appeals. Since you now claim not to remember doing this barely two weeks ago a formal restriction to help you remember seems even more apt. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Anybody who would make this and this change to images of Obama's relatives cannot be allowed further access to categories. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate - there is a convention whereby images are not included in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The word you chose—"convention"—makes me think that you refer to a poorly defined practice with which others disagree. If the images were not allowed in content categories because of an explicit guideline I'm sure you would have said so. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, to say "not allowed" is not really the sort of language used with respect to editing wikis. As I have stated there is an unwritten convention to separate images and content (as well as templates etc). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why were you reverted? Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My edits are reverted because of a difference of opinion and because some editors are not making themselves familiar with what is common practice. Surely you see it happening yourself? Everyone from newbies to the long in the tooth wiki-heads make edits that are reverted because they are not completely familiar with every single aspect of Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia has become a very complex beast making it virtually impossible for an editor to be fully conversant with the whole shebang. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a poor excuse for failing to gain consensus, failing to establish a firm guideline. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, there is a disconnect between what is done by the majority of editors and a handful of involved editors. Please go out and research the issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Beeblebrox. The message does not seem to be getting through and the repeated requests to lift the topic ban are disruptive. - MrX 23:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And I could argue that my request is not being given due consideration. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Beeblebrox, and largely per Null's comments from the last time Alan asked for the ban to be lifted, which I am surprised to learn about now. When would we ever lift a ban when the same conduct can be expected to continue, and the very clearly drawn ban hadn't been complied with? postdlf (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain to everyone what was wrong with my conduct? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I continue to hope that Alan Liefting will come to the understanding that the pattern of editing he still wants to undertake is disruptive and agrees to stop. I would trust him if he pledged to do so, and don't see a reason he should be made to wait 6 months if he does come to that understanding. That said, I also oppose lifting the topic ban until that time. Monty₈₄₅ 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say my pattern of editing is disruptive? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

First as a matter of background, there is no policy or guideline that declares one way or another whether images should be in content categories. You undertook a pattern of editing that involved removing images from content categories. Other editors who object to your pattern of editing have reverted you. You refused to stop your pattern of editing, and even now say you will continue it if your topic ban is lifted. Now I understand you believe there is an unwritten consensus in favor of your editing pattern, and I have no doubt about the sincerity of your belief. Nonetheless, in all the discussion on the matter, including a full RFC, that consensus has never been established to the satisfaction of uninvolved editors. In light of which, continuing the pattern of editing is disruptive. Monty₈₄₅ 02:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Alan still appears to have no comprehension as to what the original problem was and sees this merely as a Gulliverian attempt by the little people to tie him down. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me and to editors unfamiliar with the issue what the actual problem is? And I take issue with your suggestion that I am not wiki-egalitarian. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alan, it's up to you how to handle this but for the record arguing with every single person whose post you disagree with is generally not going to help your cause. I would in fact suggest that it is indicative of the same sort of issue that led to the topic ban in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken but I cannot let the poor quality of the arguments go unchallenged. As I pointed out in my request the decision making surrounding the issue is very poor. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, point not taken. Are you saying that the closing admin makes a decision on how many comments I make? I f that is the case I have no faith in the process. In the original discussion my complete silence in the discussion was construed by GiantSnowman to be some kind sign. Can't win can I! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a wiki - the history is there for all to see. Anyone can see the slow-moving train wreck of a process. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a wiki, where the history is there for all to see. This includes this RFC you started trying to make policy out of your above-mentioned 'convention', which was soundly rejected. While you state this convention exists without evidence, that RFC is evidence to the contrary. Why do you continue to ignore its outcome? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 02:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read my request. I have suggested a method by which this convention can be check. Please go off and check for yourself. And please assume good faith. I am not making it up. It is there for all to see. This is the nub of the argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Unfortunately necessary per WP:IDHT. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunate Support - of course, I would have made it 12 months, but meh. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support First, despite Alan Liefting accusing me in his opening statement of some things on the say-so of Kumioko, he hasn't bothered to inform me that he did discuss me. He also went to Jimbo Wales to get his opinion in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 120#Do you consider image and template pages to be content?, again referring to some unwritten convention (the silent majority argument), but forgot to mention a few counterarguments which I helpfully provided there, like the RfC that backfired. The reason for the topic ban was that Alan Liefting removed images from categories indiscriminately for no good reason ("no good reason", as established by the RfC), continued after being warned and blocked, and indicated that he would continue to make such edits. It's similar to his edit today on Krásna Hôrka Castle: while the removal of the article from the two "fire" categories may be debatable, the removal of an ancestral home of a notable family from the category for that family doesn't improve Wikipedia one bit and doesn't help the readers at all, but makes it harder for them to find connected information. Such lapses in judging categorization, while asking (again!) for the lifting of a topic ban where he wants to use even less judgment and just proceed blindly, makes it obvious that this topic ban shouldn't be lifted anytime soon and that further requests to lift it are only a waste of time for the near future. Fram (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support if someone is subject to a topic ban and wants to appeal it, then they should, at minimum, give some kind of assurance that the behaviour that led to the topic ban being imposed will not be repeated. I don't see anything like that with the two appeals that have been made in a short space of time. Instead the appeals try to argue the original topic ban was invalid, which isn't going to work - it's obvious that before the topic ban was imposed Alan was repeatedly making edits in defiance of community consensus and unwilling to listen to those telling him not to do so. If Alan does want the topic ban to be lifted, then I would suggest acknowledging the existence of a community consensus on this topic and agreeing to abide by it, even if he doesn't agree with it. Hut 8.5 11:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support no indication that the disruption is going to stop, actually the opposite. Agathoclea (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I refer Alan to the heartfelt comments I left for him the last time he appealed this ban. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support while Alan's dedication to "the reader" is admirable, this is a collegiate project, and it appears that he does not understand that from repeated blocks following the violation of a topic ban which he had already failed to have overturned, he would be best advised to consider both "the reader" and "his fellow editors" in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Actually one year would be my preference. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Range blocks

Could an admin familiar with range blocks take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer and see if anything can be done with blocking this person? I'm concerned that what we're catching of his vandalism might be the tip of the iceberg, and articles are being distorted with his misinformation without being discovered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

From which IPs has this vandal most recently been active? AGK [•] 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• 71.183.177.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.183.182.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.224.19.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.224.16.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.224.17.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

are some that I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also

• 71.183.183.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and
• 71.183.191.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Knowing nothing whatsoever about filter construction: is it possible to block certain key words only if they came from 71. or 96. addresses? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the edit filter question, so I've asked here. Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the answer is yes, you can have edit filters limited to IP ranges. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The latest IP used by this vandal is:

• 71.183.177.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Only two edits so far, but it's clearly him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Next in line 71.183.181.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• The listed ones appear to be coverable by 71.183.176.0/20 and 96.224.16.0/22, but if there are others these can be narrowed down a bit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• You'll find a full list here, if that's helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I created Special:AbuseFilter/506. We'll need to let it run log-only for a few days to be able to see what kind of edits it's catching and thus determine how we need to refine it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's excellent news. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to assist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• 71.183.182.168 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

71.183.182.168 triggered AF/506--Hu12 (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely a good catch. I've requested blocking at AIV. Beyond My Ken (talk)

His latest IP is 71.183.177.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Perhaps a look at those edits to see if the filter should be tweaked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Wnt - Request for topic or interaction ban

For some time now, I have felt that I am unable to start a public discussion without User:Wnt showing up to comment. This would be fine, except that Wnt seems unable to accurately process anything that I have written and their responses are littered with misstatements, bizarre accusations, non sequiturs, and just plain nonsense. I do my best to ignore these comments, but I seem to be a bit of a lightning rod for certain people so it is not in my best interests to let inaccuracies go uncorrected. It has reached the point where it has become tiresome and my frequent requests to Wnt to stop this behaviour have gone unheeded. In a discussion I started at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 121#Commons is broken - topless boys edition, Wnt has made a number of false statements about me or my actions. They also referred to me in a related Commons discussion as the "High Inquisitor". Wnt is apparently under the impression that Wikipediocracy "controls" Wikipedia and that I am somehow at the heart of this. For example on Commons, they recently wrote "Let's be clear about the purpose of "verified" consent. surely it is so that the folks at Wikipediocracy can get their hot little hands on a leaked list of all the email addresses and names of people who are subjects of something sexually explicit, not merely the uploaders, so that they can out them at great length on their site until some unknown scallywags spam their employers and families with copies of the photos for great victory".

An interaction ban would solve my problem, but topic banning Wnt from noticeboards and Jimbo's talk page would prevent anyone else from having to deal with the same situation in the future. Most of Wnt's contributions are to the reference desks, so I suggest limiting their participation to the reference desks. Oh, and article space, of course. Can someone please make this happen or suggest another way that I can resolve this issue? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Looking over the last month of Wnt's contributions, I see nothing that justifies a topic ban from EN noticeboards. There is also no evidence presented to support such a topic ban. Jimbo has historically had an open door policy, unless he wants someone banned from his talk page, I'm not inclined to say we should do it for him. All of the accusations here are about commons and the commons related discussion that you started here, let commons handle it. Other then the problems at Jimbo's talk page, is there anything else recent to support an interaction ban? Monty₈₄₅ 21:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  You can pretty much go to any discussion started by me on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or Jimbo's talk page and see any comments by Wnt (examples: [40], [41], [42], [43]. Here are a couple of recent diffs which display his Wikipediocracy delusions: [44], [45]. When I reverted a horribly NPOV edit to the BLP of a white supremacist by a "new" user, Wnt went to their user page, gave them some rather questionable advice including "I haven't gone over it in detail but you'll have a smaller range of things to argue about". With me, presumably. I haven't bothered to go back and repair William Luther Pierce and I doubt I will bother if it's just going to be an uphill battle. I would just like Wnt to stop fixating on me and make it possible for me to have a discussion without having to continually rebut his nonsense comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  You can ask Jimbo Wales to ban Wnt from posting on his talk page. He can do that if he want. After all, it's his talk page.--В и к и T 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban or interaction ban per Monty845.--В и к и T 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't seen any ban-worthy conduct on Wnt's part here. Wnt seems to post on Jimbo's talk page a lot, so if you're tired of dealing with his arguments you should just avoid posting there. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban or interaction ban. DC, however, has been implicitly asked to stay away from Jimbo's page (see this). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read that as implying Jimbo doesn't want to hear from DC. I took it as asking editors to stay away from Wikipediocracy. But I might have missed something. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo would probably prefer not to have some of those discussions on his talk page, but if Jimbo wanted me to stay away from his talk page, I am quite sure he would let me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I did err in attributing the Naser al-Din Shah reference to Delicious carbuncle; it was JN466 who suggested that. Otherwise, however, you can't expect to ask "Is it time to shut it down and start again?" about a major aspect of Wikipedia and not have some disagreement; this is not personal. I should note my concerns about Wikipediocracy were not directed at Delicious carbuncle, who didn't take part, for example, in their recent canvassing for thekohser at Wikipedia:Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations. What is frustrating about this is that Delicious carbuncle has brought up child protection situations that did need action, and he deserves substantial credit for that, but the way he phrases them side-tracks the conversation with more contentious issues. Wnt (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Wnt, I am not surprised if people disagree with me and I am willing to listen to their comments. What you do is not disagreement - it is misinformation. I do not believe that you are a brilliant troll, as others do, but your idiosyncratic interpretations of my statements amount to the same thing. If you disagreed with what I said, that would be fine, but commenting on something that I have not said and chastising me for things that I have not done makes it difficult for others to follow the conversation. Even in this conversation, you have brought up Wikipediocracy "canvassing" as if tshirt giveaways are actually of some importance. You need to realize that Wikipediocracy is just a web forum with only a handful of active members. You seem unhealthily obsessed with and threatened by it, and I believe that fuels your comments towards me. I could do better by not mocking your comments, but it has become tiresome to try and sort out the nonsense you add to any conversation you are in. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  And when you say "child protection situations that did need action", I assume you are talking about this discussion on Jimbo's page about an editor who self-identified as a pro-pedophilia advocate? It still needs action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban or interaction ban. There are plenty of users who always show up on DC-initiated discussions, because DC canvasses for them on an offwiki site and tries to attract negative publicity for Wikimedia on mainstream news outlets. Inevitably, such exhibitionism will attract dissenting viewpoints as well. I would be more sympathetic to this proposal if the proposer cultivated a more private personality. Also, these discussions are happening on places of great public interest, such as administrator noticeboards and Jimbo's talk page. They are not discussions on obscure articles. It can be tempting to conclude that DC is less interested in building an encyclopedia than in tearing it down, such as by repeatedly trying to associate Commons or Wikipedia with pedophilia, etc. Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Shrigley, am I associating Wikipedia with pedophilia, etc, or are the pro-pedophilia advocates who edit here associating it with pedophilia (etc)? Am I trying to "tear down" Wikipedia, or am I trying to goad the community into dealing with some of the issues here? Also, I request that you strike your comment about "DC canvasses for them on an offwiki site and tries to attract negative publicity for Wikimedia on mainstream news outlets". That kind of unsupported accusation is a clear personal attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  In order to "support" the "accusation" - which you don't deny, because it is well-known to everybody familiar with your antics - I would have to link to your website and writings there, which I do not want to promote. Accusing others of "personal attacks" is very cynical for somebody who has made a Wikipedia career of leading crusades of outing and humiliation against Wikipedians such as Fae who disproportionately identify as LGBT. I would compare what is going on here to a system of continuous 4chan raids, whereupon the imported hordes of commentators seek to impose an authoritarian system on Wikipedia to enforce a conservative sexual morality on a majority of Wikipedians who share an "open source software" ethos. Of course you're allowed to have these debates, but don't expect to be able to crush dissent here, as you would on your private website, via topic or interaction bans. Shrigley (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I've been in this situation before when Russavia and others told outright lies about a thread on Wikipedia Review in an attempt to have me banned. It is perfectly ok for you to make allegations without providing evidence (in obvious violation of WP:NPA) because I am a bad person. And if I don't deny your accusations strongly enough, they must be true. Oh, and you could prove it, but you won't, because then you would have to link to my site and you wouldn't want to do that. And what's this? I'm also a homophobe because of something about LGBT which I can't quite parse. Plus there's something about 4chan and "imported hordes of commentators" which I have doubtlessly organized. And to top it all off, I am apparently trying impose a "conservative sexual morality" on people. Thanks, I think you have clarified your vote against imposing a topic ban on a barely coherent fantasist who spends most of their time on the troll magnets reference desks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Would someone mind dealing with the gross personal attacks by Shrigley in the section above? I'm not expecting much, but this is the admin noticeboard and there is nothing subtle about these violations of WP:NPA: [46] & [47]. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Shrigley did not make any personal attacks; they said some negative things, yes, but there's no rule against that, and your description of those comments as "gross personal attacks" is decidedly closer to incivility than anything Shrigley said. In my humble opinion, you're dangerously close to finding yourself the subject of a BOOMERANG thread, per WP:AOBF. You're also far too experienced an editor to think you can get anyone banned without providing a whole lot of diffs, which makes this thread itself a bit POINTy. Argue all you want, but if you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself, I don't see how this is going to end well. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Get anyone banned? Where did I ask for anyone to be banned? You must really dislike me if you're burning your month-old sockpuppet over this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant topic-banned. Please either retract your accusation or take me to SPI. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how accusing someone of sock puppetry without evidence is any better then the conduct you were complaining of. Can someone just collapse the two threads and put an end to it? Monty₈₄₅ 21:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you probably don't, but if you wait long enough, you will. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood for trolls today. If anyone wants to block me for implying that you aren't the new and uninvolved 16 year old gay user you pretend to be, I'm sure they will also take a close look at your contributions, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I will gladly settle this at SPI. If you are not willing to take this there, and are not willing to retract your accusations, your comments qualify as personal attacks. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point, and in light of this confirmation that you've seen my latest response, I take it you have no intention choosing either acceptable option? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Franamax

Just to advise all that admin Franamax (talk · contribs) has died. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, that's very sad indeed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that. 28bytes (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's terrible. He was a good guy. Condolences to his family. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

May they rest in peace. NE Ent 23:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sad events such as this really put into perspective the ridiculous squabbles and petty grievances that occur here. Now everyone go write an article, help clear a backlog, or lend a helping hand to a new contributor. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the account is still able to edit. Isn't it standard practice to block accounts of deceased editors with a gracious block message, since any further edits from those accounts would either be role accounts or have been compromised? Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not to block per Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. --Rschen7754 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's terrible! I am so sorry to hear this..... GJC 06:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is sad news. I liked little Franny a lot. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that. :( Fran was a good one. Andreas JN466 08:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was shocked to learn about this. Franamax was kind and thoughtful, a very good and likeable person to have around. My condolences to his family.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Very sad news indeed. GiantSnowman 12:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's not much I can say except to echo the above, and in particular Roger. This is shocking and very sad news indeed. Franamax was well-regarded on Wikipedia and he'll be missed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, this is truly sad news. Sorry to hear it. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Terribly sorry to hear, and my condolences to friends and family. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

	In honor of Franamax
	This is in honor of Franamax, who has passed away on November 25, 2012. This user will be highly and deeply missed. RIP.

I made this for anybody to put in their userspace who wishes to honor the death of Franamax.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please consider adding condolences to User talk:Franamax#Condolences. I see several users who have commented here, and not there. This will archive as a regular wp:an thread; Franmax's talk page will remain as a lasting tribute. It is fitting that it should reflect the thoughts of editors moved to comment. My76Strat (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow this is a bummer. I just went through a bunch of his contributions, particularly to my talk page, smiling and remembering. Roger said it well above "Franamax was kind and thoughtful, a very good and likeable person to have around." He'll be missed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Crap! I know it happens, but, well, Franamax? Hell. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

TreasuryTag unban request

This is clearly failing and further piling on just smacks of kicking TT while he is down. Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is asking to be unblocked. The block was imposed by the community at large and has been treated as de facto ban, so a discussion needs to take place. He is invoking WP:OFFER, but provides no details beyond that except for asking for review of his previous requests, sort of a do-it-yourself ban appeal I guess, see his talk page for the actual conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Can somebody with the relevant knowledge/memory please link to the ban discussion? GiantSnowman 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC) According to the template on his page this would be it. this seems relevant as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Just to fill in the background, I believe this was the most recent unban discussion the community had about TT. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Something that kind of slipped under the radar at the time until after he was already indeffed is the previous usernames and their block logs. Circuit_Judge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rambutan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In addition to the previous appeals on his talk page he apparently also appealed to WP:BASC earlier this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC) To clarify on the BASC appeal, it was declined in part because there had been an unsuccessful community appeal shortly beforehand, and given that it was a community ban the feeling was it should be up to the community to decide when or if to enable a return in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC) My strong inclination is to oppose this request. The two word unblock request ("Per previous") and the way the subsequent short discussion unfolded (e.g. "trust that that opposition will not be repeated", "on the well-known grounds that indefinite blocks are not supposed to be infinite") is just more of the same battleground behaviour laced in pseudo-pleasantries and wiki-lawyering that helped lead to a ban. I believe that Treasury Tag is completely unsuited to a collaborative editing environment and no time away from the project will change this fundamental incongruity between their editing style and the goals of this project. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC) (multiple ec) During one of TreasuryTag's previous unblock requests ([48], just under 12 months ago), there was a suggestion that he be allowed to return under some form of mentorship. At the time, I wrote (in part), ...While I don't endorse or expect any sort of 'demonstration of remorse', 'acts of contrition', 'ritual abasement', or other general humiliation, when an individual has been blocked as many times as TT has (under this account and his previous accounts) the community does tend to be leery of "just give me another chance", because we've tried that, and it hasn't resulted in sufficient improvement. Just telling us that it will be different because he's being watched isn't quite sufficient; he's been watched before. What TT and his mentors should be doing during his block is not make repeated requests on this board and attempt to negotiate an immediate return. The community has pretty clearly spoken on this issue—they see TT as a net negative for the project, and the fact that it's taking such an elaborate monitoring regime for a return to be even considered speaks volumes. Frankly, a good portion of the community probably sees this extended discussion as an ill-considered further waste of resources....[Y]ou need to be able to clearly elucidate how TT returning to the project will be a substantial and significant net benefit to Wikipedia. Figure out specific areas where he has contributions to make. Clearly identify past problems, and how those will be avoided or addressed. Regrettably, what I'm seeing is a similar lack of respect for the community. This time around, TreasuryTag's initial request for unblocking was just two words long: "Per previous." Instead of spending even a smidgen of time somewhere in the last six months putting a little bit of effort, thought, and introspection in to composing this request, he's expecting the community to do all the legwork to come up with some argument on his behalf. Decline unban on the basis of no visible progress since the last request, and no explanation why an unban would be in the project's best interests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC) How does a blocked editor demonstrate "progress" during a block? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Contributing constructively on other projects is one of the more common ways to do it. At the very least, a detailed unblock request explaining how the issues that led to the block/ban will be addressed would be expected. N419BH 19:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC) While N419BH's suggestion is a good one, the lack of 'progress' I noted is with respect to TreasuryTag's formulation of his unblock requests. Looking more closely at the history, TreasuryTag has made at least four unsuccessful requests to lift his current indefinite block and ban. October 2011 December 2011 March 2012 June 2012, through the ArbCom's ban appeals subcommittee Each of the on-wiki requests has included specific inquiries from the community pleading for TreasuryTag to explain how he intended to contribute to the project if he was unbanned, and how he intended to avoid further trouble. He has demurred, and each request has failed. This most recent request suffers from the same omissions. Indeed, this request now lacks any details from TreasuryTag whatsoever. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose, for someone with a block list that long, there should be a rock solid reason to unban. I don't see it at the moment. Max Semenik (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose - TT has not presented a valid reason for an unban. GiantSnowman 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Wait An editor has requested new and more detailed statement on his talk page. I think we should wait to see if one is forthcoming before deciding. Monty845 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I should think he already knew how to appeal a block after around thirty previous blocks. He just didn't bother. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose unban. "I took time away from WP" is good additional input to an unban request, but as the entire substance of one, it's simply not enough. TT, we need you to explain how things would be different this time, not tell us that everything is the same except the clock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I guess I should also state for the record that I am opposed to lifting this ban. Enough time has gone by that OFFER would apply, but the attitude, which was always his problem, is clearly the same. Condescending, smarmy, and self-important. Previous valid blocks across all four usernames add up to somewhere around thirty over the course of four years. Nothing is presented today to suggest that block number thirsty one would not be in his near future if we let him back in. Mentoring was tried and failed because he wouldn't listen to the mentor. Some people are just not suited for a project like this and the evidence strongly suggests that TT is one of those people Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose per above. A banned editor really must go out of their way to show that they have "reformed" (for lack of a better word) and that they "get it", such that we could expect improvement in the problem areas, and that allowing them back would be a net positive rather than a behavioral management time suck. Obviously that hasn't happened here. Actually, just consider TenOfAllTrades' comments incorporated by reference here, because I can't improve on his assessment. postdlf (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC) As mentioned above, I've asked TT to consider making a more detailed statement, and I've also notified User:Worm That Turned of this unban request. Worm previously offered to mentor TT along with User:Fastily, who has since retired. I think the prudent course of action is to see what TT has to say before we make a decision. N419BH 19:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I am prepared to support an effort to bring TT back to productive editing, but it does require a thoughtful request from TT that sounds sincere and credible, short of that I can't really support or oppose, there's just nothing there. I hope it does manifest. My76Strat (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose per unwilling to even form a decent unblock request. NE Ent 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose. TreasuryTag has yet to supply a valid reason for unbanning. And even if TT does supply one, just glancing at that monstrosity otherwise known as the block log is enough for me to oppose. WikiPuppies bark dig 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Support – TT's past positive contributions entitle him to a further chance. His negative contributions were an annoyance to editors, more than damaging to the encyclopedia. We know what the risks are, they're acceptable. Should this turn out to be unworkable, I'm sure any necessary future block will be enacted without an unreasonable amount of inconvenience. It's worth the chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose I don't think we should unban someone with this kind of history without a very good reason. We don't have one. Attempting to rehabilitate disruptive users isn't a very good use of everyone's time. Hut 8.5 19:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Regarding the point raised above of waiting for a more detailed request: First, he already knows how block appeals work, having succesfully done so many times in the past. Second, I very clearly told him he should provide a more detailed explanation if he wanted his request to be considered, and his reply was basically "look it up yourself". He's always kind of been his own worst enemy like that, part of what makes his attitude and Wikipedia a bad match. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose Let's just say that "per previous" is not WP:GAB compliant, and is thus is not unban compliant either. Even WP:OFFER requires the blocked editor to explain how they'll be different in the future. As per Beeblebrox above, he knows how the process works - now he's simply screwing with us (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I really don't get what he hoped to accomplish with this. Why even bother with such a poorly constructed appeal? It is like he is just screwing around. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I don't see any reason to believe this isn't a genuine unban request or that TT's intention here isn't as simple as "get unbanned via community consensus". It doesn't appear to be a very effective unban request, but that's distinct from not being a genuine one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose Per previous. If anyone wants, they can search the archives for more written about this in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC) ...and here I thought you were going to link to your previous !vote from his past request, "per previous" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose The appeal is little different from any of the others and TT has never understood WP:NOTTHERAPY. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose Sadly, there are a few editors who are simply unable to edit here a collegiate and non-confrontational manner. This user appears to be one such and I feel that he should not be here. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose per half-hearted effort on the part of user requesting unban. I can only assume that TT is going through this to prove a point, rather than with any expectation that it will be successful. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose I remember well the disruptive problems caused by TT's behavior, and see no particular sign that he will be any different if he's allowed back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC) What was he blocked for? and has he committed socking since? GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC) He was blocked initially basically for chronic disruptive behavior, not one particular incident. Before that mentorship was tried, unblock conditions were tried, all to no avail. However as far as I know there has been no socking. That is just a minimum requirement though. If this were some clueless teenager who could reasonably be expected to have matured some in the interim it would be different. A user with ~30 blocks in four years is not going to be "fixed" by just taking some time off, they need to show a real commitment to changing their approach, which is utterly lacking from TT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Were any of those blocks for vandalism? GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC) AFAIR, none of them. He was disruptive and abusive to other editors, myself included, but always had respect for the encyclopedia itself. IMHO, this justifies further chances to prove himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Support, My approach to block/ban situations has softened over the year. Making editors go away or stay away, just doesn't do it for me. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC) proposed new conditions I just looked over the last such discussion and note that at that time his ban was further refined to require him to wait a minimum of six months to appeal. In light of the details above, that he has apparently appealed five times in total (including this one) and has failed to present any sort of compelling explanation as to why the ban should be lifted, combined with the near-unanimity of the above replies I propose that restriction be lengthened to a period of one year, said year to begin when this thread is closed. Any attempt to appeal through any means, including WP:BASC before that will lead to a resetting of the start time of that year. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC) support as proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose - this proposal is designed as a mechanism for a lifetime ban. Regardless of TT's offenses, that's unfair.→StaniStani  23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Time is not the issue here. If he really put his heart into it and showed he was being serious about the request, I would consider supporting an unblock, regardless of when it is made. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose Okay he can't contribute here until he fixes his problems but we don't have to be mean about it. SlightSmile 23:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC) kind of surprised at these comments. The idea is not to be mean, it is to try and get him to take this seriously, which he is clearly unwilling to do at present. He just waited until the six months that was mandated was up and then posted a request that said "time's up, unblock me" and nothing else. So, six months from now we can reasonably expect exactly the same thing again. If the ban conditions are tightened there is at least a chance that he will actually take them seriously next time and realize that he has but one shot per year. If he doesn't bother to put more than five seconds of effort into it it won't work. Five appeals, each of them utterly lacking in substance, Nearly thirty blocks, and no lessons learned from any of them. TT has caused his own problems and it is high time the enabling stopped completely and that TT is sent a message that if he cannot be bothered to even try and present an actual argument to let him back in he is wasting his own time and the communities time as well. [If you don't like this restriction, how about revoking talk page access and requiring him to convince WP:BASC by email that he is at least willing to present a real case before any future discussions of a lifting of the ban? No time frame, he just has to get past some gatekeepers by demonstrating that he is making a serious request and not just using "it's been long enough" as the sole reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose I see no useful purpose of lengthening such an interval. The price of maintaining the community is indeed an "overhead" such as hearing TT's requests at a reasonable interval. That's an entirely reasonable cost to be paying. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose I understand the reasoning behind the condition, but IMHO, the real restriction should be something along the lines of "if the next unban request is not sufficiently stated to allow for full investigation and debate, then talkpage access will be immediately removed" or something that prevents this boneheaded disruption we're now going through above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Oppose One can't demostrate if one's reformed, while being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC) One can, however, hold one's horses for a year until demonstrating that one has reformed. Wikamphetamine may be highly addictive, but there have been no cases of deaths from temporary withdrawal. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Blocks should be preventative not punitive, TT has served his 6-months & shouldn't be punished further. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC) While the lack of any reasoning other than, "It's been six months, unblock me" is disappointing, TT did in fact wait six months between the BASC request and this community request as suggested at that time. Therefore, we can't say he is completely ignoring community input. N419BH 00:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User page masquerading as an article

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

---

User:Snaphappynat is masquerading as an article and it is in a content category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Commented out mainspace cats and tagged as a userpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the make in a NOINDEX page? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Alone, no. However, I've added the {{NOINDEX}} template to the top of the page. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Closing of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a proposal on the Village Pump/Proposals about closing the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 23:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat rights discussion

I have started a RFC regarding allowing bureaucrats to remove the bureaucrat bit, and regarding the regranting of the bureaucrat bit (to bring it into line with the recently-passed policies for administrators). Please see Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#2012 bureaucrats RFC. --Rschen7754 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift 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.

---

On 12 November 2012, I was indefinitely restricted from making non-admin closures. Although I am not willing to make more closures, I would like to see the restriction removed. In the case I choose to perform any closure, I will seek administrative mentorship before eventually performing any. I understand the mistakes I made while closing several discussions and I consider that I have learned from them. The original discussion can be seen here. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: There were multiple and serious problems with your NAC's, not all of which were even mentioned in the previous ANI, such as the one IRWolfie mentions on your user talk page. Your subsequent behavior on AfDs, specifically continued use of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, does not inspire confidence in your grasp of AfD argumentation, nor does the infuriatingly lackadaisical way you argued in the last ANI. I don't believe your attitude has improved so much over the past three weeks to justify entrusting you with NACs, mentorship or no mentorship. Sorry, but my conclusion is that you just don't have what it takes to do this job right. Maybe in a year I might believe that you have improved significantly. But in three weeks? No way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  From your comments, I can reach two conclusions: 1) You seem to have an axe to grind on me after I tried to help at the Australian Christian Lobby discussion; and 2) You have a very vague and erroneous conception of me. I won't comment further. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  Your WP:AGF button get turned off again? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Two weeks in and you're asking for removal? Come back in a minimum of 6 months for a review, or else you're just being disruptive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I have just reviewed the intial discussion, I would consider an appeal after only two weeks as direct evidence that the user has not acquired sufficient experience with how Wikipedia works to be closing anything, AFD or otherwise. The request as worded barely makes any sense anyway. ou say you are "unwilling" to do more closures, but you want the restriction lifted so you can do them anyway. You volunteer to ask an admin for advice first. Logically, for an admin to advise you they would have to review the entire discussion. At that point they could just do it themselves, so what's the point? I am sure a time will come when the restriction is gladly lifted, but now is just too soon and there is no demonstrable benefit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unsnow and partial support. The ban statement was incorrect in its claim Hahc21 agreed to refrain from closing anything "on any forum" in Wikipedia when, in fact, he agreed not to edit Afd pages, which is not the same as any forum. Support ban on closing Afds until they gain more experience. NE Ent 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The restriction was based on community consensus and user agreement. Hahc21 did not indicate any disagreement with the terms of the imposed restriction at the time. There wasn't a longer discussion by the community on the restriction only because Hahc21 stopped it in its track by agreeing to it. -- KTC (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of any restriction at the present time. Way way too soon. -- KTC (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Asking to have the community revoke a restriction so soon after it was imposed is a bad idea. Removing the restriction based on such a request is nearly always a WORSE idea. GJC 07:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as the initial proposer of the restriction. The lack of citing policy/guideline during deletion discussions, such as here and here, is also concerning. Till 13:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see non-admin closures as a bit of a barely necessary function as it is. So anyone that misuses or makes closes mistakenly if they aren't an admin shouldn't be allowed to make any more until the community decides they are of the quality to be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - far too soon. GiantSnowman 13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm very sorry, but I must oppose your request as the ban had only started two weeks ago, and I believe this is too soon for a lifted request to return to non-admin closures. I'd personally recommend that you wait a few more months, and then re-apply again. I also seem to agree with some of the above. TBrandley 17:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

New Policy Change

Per this RfC the community has agreed to the following policy changes regarding administrators and bureaucrats:

1. Any admin that voluntarily, involuntarily, or due to inactivity, had their bit removed must wait 24 hours upon requesting them back to allow for a thorough examination. Any discussion currently going on regarding resysopping of the editor in question must be concluded first before any action be made.
2. Regardless of how or why the tools were removed, if an editor makes 0 edits throughout a continuous three years, they are required to go through a reconfirmation RfA, should they wish to have their tools back. That means a total of 3 uninterrupted years must have passed, with 0 edits from this user, for a reconfirmation RfA to become mandatory if the user wishes to have their tools back.

The following changes in the appropriate policy pages will be made to reflect this consensus.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 01:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Will those that have already been de-sysoped for inactivity be notified? Agathoclea (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Santa Clause movie being promoted in Wikipedia

Would an admin please semi-protect the redirects Santa Clause and Santa clause. More than four years of changing the redirect between the person and the movie seems a little too much.[49] and [50]. The Santa Clause movie also was being promoted in the Santa Claus article.[51]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please can someone take the unable to proceed so i can create an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calaber007 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What a completely lame edit war. Whoever argues that the redirect Santa Clause is intending to go to the movie needs a trout lump of coal. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it really WP:PROMOTION? "Santa Clause" may be a plausible typo for "Santa Claus" but in English usage it still refers to the movies in question. Somewhere there should be a {{redirect}} or other dab navigation template bringing people to the right place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That is very true; the top of the article Santa Claus should say that Santa Clause redirects there, and should point to the movie article as a likely target. Regardless, Santa Claus should redirect to Santa Claus, though. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"in English usage it still refers to the movies in question"? I doubt it very much - a disappointingly-large proportion of English speakers have trouble with spelling - or alternatively an encouragingly-large proportion refuse to be bound by such Stalinist orthographic conventions. Either way, you seem not to be citing any source for your claims that what looks like a typo is instead an attempt to locate a minor cinematographic product. Please provide one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

My own Google-foo suggests that 1 in 20 references to "Santa Clause" are to the Tim Allen movie, with the rest being typos. So I'd agree with where the redirect points now. A hatnote seems reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of dabhats in these sorts of circumstances, too. Always good to help get folks to the article they're trying to get to as quickly as possible. If I were trying to keep things as simple as possible, I'd send Santa Clause to The Santa Clause and put a dabhat to Santa Claus at The Santa Clause. (That was fun.) But I wouldn't object to reversing that (as is the case at this very second). Shouldn't this be a discussion over at one of those articles, though? jæs (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with jæs on this, "Santa Clause" may be a misspelling in one context but it has a specific meaning in another. A dabhat at Santa Claus seems appropriate. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The majority of top results in Google (UK) are for the film, or for one of its sequels. An exact match, or with minor differences such as "The" or capitalisation, should have priority over a misspelling - "The" is often omitted when at the beginning of a title (such as in default sorting in Wikipedia categories) - so the redirects should go to the film article unless it's an accepted alternative spelling of Santa Claus. It isn't promotional just because one of the articles is about a commercial product, and the difference between the two names is enough - we have never had disambiguation links connecting Claus with Clause. Peter James (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the age of the film and its sequels, I don't think there is any promotion going on here. Just good-faith attempts to point readers to the material they are probably looking for. It has gone on for several years, and there are no visible patterns? I don't see any indication that anyone is trying to benefit economically from these edits? Just some people who searched the film and thought that there should be a hatnote? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Since this is a content issue with differing opinions expressed here, I created an RFC at the redirect talk page here to help resolve the matter. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 23:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

This board is pretty backlogged and could use some attention from an admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

True. I did a little work there, but I'm packing it in for bed. More people there, please. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to De728631, Writ Keeper, Reaper Eternal, Bwilkins, and anyone that I missed. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Who broke the CSS?

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.

---

Writ Keeper in his new home

A group of marauding Wikipedians will shortly be sticking the perpetrator on this log fire. Please bring a pitchfork.

What in the world happened to the CSS? Menus all over the page. Someone is headed to the WP:STOCKS.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing. I don't like this, whatever it is; someone needs to change it back. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't I tell you all a few days ago that Writ Keeper was testing something in his sandbox? But no one listened to me. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup .. it's pooched (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a thread at VPT, too; probably best there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Seems to have gone back to normal already. Although I would like the spectacle of somebody in the stocks too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I still have this problem.I am using Chrome--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't resolved for me either and I'm using Firefox. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hit CTRL + F5. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am using Safari and I have the same error. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For Chrome, I had to "Clear Browsing Data > Empty the Cache". --j⚛e decker^talk 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not CTRL+F5 for everyone; there are more detailed instructions at WP:BYPASS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about us discussing the problem here, Writ. We don't try to fix problems at WP:AN, we just bitch about them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why all the exciting fixes are going down at VPT. TL;DR: people are reporting that bypassing or (preferably) clearing the browser cache entirely is fixing the problem; instructions on how to do both can be found at WP:BYPASS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Its spilled into IRC. Monkeys and fish are everywhere, Writ, you broke the damn wiki ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and this problem is occurring. TBrandley 19:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.21wmf5 was rolled out today; it has numerous changes in skin related CSS. Errors seen are due to caching issues, so clear your cache then purge any page. Having said that, the collapsible navigation menus in Vector are still broken. — Edokter (talk) — 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WOW :P, clearing your cache in FF has worked thank (whoever) Mlpearc (powwow) 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

CollapsibleNav seems fixed as well. — Edokter (talk) — 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Find out who broke it later, fix it now. My76Strat (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I got the same problem, I switched to another style temporarily, switched back, hit CTRL+F5 and the problem disappeared. We all make mistakes, so just chill the frag out. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cache issue it is not. Safari with cache turned of and still the same amusing view! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I have no evidence that Writ Keeper is in any way responsible for this unfortunate event, none at all. It was simply an accusation I threw out there, because of a long-standing grudge, and since it was without direct evidence one could call it unfounded. That doesn't mean, of course, that he didn't do it. He's quite devious. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal at WP:ANI

Resolved

Over at WP:ANI, someone's proposed banning Purplebackpack89 from edits related to the Article Rescue Squadron. Ban proposals belong here, not there, but the discussion is advanced enough that it would be disruptive to move it, so I'll simply ask you to go over there and leave comments. The section is "Dream Focus, CallawayRox, and the ARS drama machine, again", it's the subsection entitled "Topic Ban Purplebackpack89 from ARS". Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; the other discussion has been closed. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone restore my IFD'd images? Now I can't look back at my old Ref Desk questions

Resolved

 – OP asked deleting admin to restore, and they did. --64.85.215.111 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is for the images linked on my talk page. I mean I could take it to IFD review, but they were drawings used to illustrate a question on the Science Reference Desk, of course they don't have to match all the criteria for article quality, like matching every single criterion of the Chemical Drawing Guidelines or being in SVG. Now I can't look back at my old questions and ponder what they mean. I really don't understand mindless deletion campaign. Can't people leave Reference Desk images alone? Sure they weren't used in any article, but this mindless deletion makes old Ref Desk archives un-understandable. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding this a particularly compelling reason to summarily overturn another admins properly done actions. I think you will have to ask for a formal review if you want those decisions overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This does look like a strange rationale for deleting images. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator or go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hut 8.5 14:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is orthogonal to the encyclopedia itself: if it helps the project's main goal at all, it is in encouraging experts to create content which can later be used to improve articles. That means that images created for use on the reference desk should ideally be high-quality enough that they could be used on articles. It does not further the project's goals to make exceptions to our image quality guidelines for the sake of a peripheral sub-project. If particular images are needed for temporary retrieval then the best thing would be to poke the admin responsible for a copy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support undeletion as a general rule. The Reference Desk archives are a useful accumulation of questions and answers at varying levels of technical detail. People considering new reference desk questions are instructed to search for old answers in the archives. I have not seen these images, but the point is, if they were in use on the Reference Desk and attracted no complaint then, and now in retrospect someone is griping about some supposed quality issue, not that they're pirated, then by all means, they should be regarded as in-use images. They might be proposed to transwiki to Commons in the usual manner, but that is all. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

topic ban for User:Santos30

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Disruptive_editor_User:Escarlati

Santos30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is POV-pushing his personal views about Crown of Castile, Cross of Burgundy and several other articles. His attempts in Spanish wikipedia were reverted and he was finally blocked for sockpuppetry. He moved to English wikipedia a few months ago, distorting several articles to represent his personal views. He has been edit-warring to keep his changes. Several editors have failed to convince him via discussion. He doesn't acknowledge reliable sources, and he pours poorly-interpreted sources to support his POV. He is slowly moving Crown of Castile into fantasy territory to match his POV. This has been going for long enough.

Despite this, he makes some good work on American Independence articles, I am hoping that the topic ban forces him to stay in articles where he is being constructive.

So I propose a topic ban on:

• flags
• coats of arms
• anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted (he can still edit and create articles about American viceroyalties and governorates, but he should only reference the Crown of Castile to say that it was founded by the Crown or that it was part of the Crown)

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Crown of Castile or how broad a topic ban related to it would be, but would the proposed topic ban cover xe's created articles? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hum, for the viceroyalties and governorates, you can write a lengthy article with only one passing mention to the Crown of Castile in the lead (e.x. Viceroyalty of Peru). But, hum, damn, they were legally part of the Crown of Castile.... I added an exception, I made it difficult to game.

In most of those articles it would cover only all those flags and coats of arms in the infobox (an infobox with no images is an improvement from using the wrong images).

For the American revolutions and battles, The Crown of Castile had already disappeared. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nathan Johnson:

1) The topic is not the articles that Santos30 has created. Those articles could have another kind of problems: Battle of Torata (no sources) or Arthur Sandes (copyright problems [52] [53])

2) The topic is that user Santos 30 (Domenico at Spanish Wikipedia) has two goals about Crown of Castile and Cross of Burgundy. And to get these goals he has modified several articles with his personal point of view. I have not participated in the topic about Crown Castle talk, but I did participate in the topic about the Cross of Bugundy.

3) User Santos 30 with his alter ego Domenico has been blocked twice at Spanish Wikipedia [54] because he modified articles without consensus when talk was still underway (July 9, 2008 and June 11, 2010).

4) In July 2012 he back to the same behavior changing flags in several articles while a talk was underway. He had been warning to stop three times [55] [56] [57]. Then he decided withdraw from Spanish Wikipedia (July 28, 2012) [58] and came to English Wikipedia, Simple Enlish Wikipedia and Commons to get his goals, first with 83.34.153.98 account and later with Santos 30 account.

5) In August 9, 2012, I asked a request at Wikimedia [59], they recommended me to request at every Wikipedia, meanwhile at Spanish Wikipedia Domenico was blocked per six months because sabotage (WP:POINT) when an administrator confirmed his puppet accounts Leonciolima [60] and Santos 30 [61] (since August 13, both puppet accounts are blocked forever at Spanish Wikipedia). August 17, 2012, finally I made a request in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30/Archive, after Santos 30 recognized the account 83.34.153.98 DQ just commented that there is no abuse of multiple accounts on English Wikipedia, but I think the problem continues.

6) Backing to the topic: After Domenico/Santos 30 left Spanish Wikipedia, he eliminated the Cross of Burgundy flag in several articles at English Wikipedia (July, 27): [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. July 31, as a result of his editing changes in Spanish Empire an edit war was reported [69] by user Trasamundo. A long discussion took place from July 31 to August 12 in Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Flag of Carlism & Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Continuation.

This is very important: He did not stop to change flags in other articles [70] [71] (July, 30). In August 5-6, when the conversation was still going on, even without achieving consensus, Santos30 returned to his usual behavior and began to change flags in other articles: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. I have asked him: "Why are you asking for a third opinion if you are changing right now the flags in several articles?" he answered me: "Americas was incorpored to Crown of Castile and whats your problem there?. You can open a new discussion there". (!)

In August 7, user Trasamundo decided to support Santos 30's point of view. I want to quote his words, because this is what Santos 30 calls consensus:

Santos30's tactic is to ignore everything and repeat again and again the same slogans fruit of his particular deductions as it was been quoted above. Of course I see useless to keep this discussion with someone who has made WP:GAME as their way of operate, and after tons of references he despises everything that is said and simply raises its solution because a user has put a comment on their talk page. Well, my deepest gratitude to that user. Although there have been references to the use of the white flag with the cross of burgundy in the Spanish empire, if Santos30 is going to leave this absurd issue of the Carlist flag and and close this discussion then I am able to support the replacement of this cross of burgundy for this cross of burgundy. And now to wait for the next crusade, will be to remove the yoke and arrows and the eagle from coat of arms of the Catholic kings because they were falangist symbols 500 years later?

— Trasamundo (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In August 12, user MarshalN20 joined to the talk: "You have asked for several "third opinions", and all of them have been favorable towards the return of the Cross of Burgundy flag to the articles from where they were removed"; Santos 30 answered him: "Third opinion for the article of Spanish Empire yes, and thank you, but you came late because already we have a consensus to put the military red cross of Burgundy here. Without the modern white flag". (!) Obviously, in September 3, someone came and changed the flag [77].

7) Same problem in New Spain article. July 27, with his account 83.34.153.98, Santos changed the flag [78]; in August 5, somebody disagreed [79], and Santos 30 reverted him [80].

8) From November 21 to December 2, the same discussion took place in Talk:New Spain#flag was the "estandarte virreinal" (please review that talk, you don't need to be an expert). At the same time, Santos 30 reported user Escarlati in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Disruptive_editor_User:Escarlati, I agree with Escarlati's comment, with Maragm's comment, and with Enric Naval's comment.

9) Finally, I agree with this request. I really think Santos 30 is pushing his personal point of view without any consensus because I think Trasamundo's words can not be considerated as a truly consensus. Jaontiveros (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going on holiday for 4 days. Can someone explain to me why this request is getting no answers? Is it because the topic is not familiar to English people? Is it because most sources are in Spanish? Do I need to cross some extra "t" before I make this request? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes goes live in three hours

Just a reminder that WP:Pending changes goes live in a little less than three hours. The policy is in the usual place, at WP:Protection policy. Requests should be handled like any regular request, i.e., at WP:RFPP. As a kindness to your fellow editors and admins, please do not drown RFPP in requests on the first couple of days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Krenair just pointed out on IRC that no one filed a bug request to enable it. Has anyone talked to a dev about getting it turned on? I just asked in #wikimedia-tech. Legoktm (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nvm, looks like it was never turned off. Special:Log/stable. Legoktm (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a question about what needs to be done, and who is able to do it at being discussed at Wikipedia talk:PC2012/RfC 3. It is currently turned on at least for certain testing pages. If turned on generally, it is at least suppressed somehow. If someone knowledgeable on the matter could comment there it would be appreciated. Monty₈₄₅ 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the question is answered, thanks. Monty₈₄₅ 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will try, as the person at least partially "to blame" for this, to be available to answer any questions, help with any backlogs, absorb gratuitous abuse, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very confused, as I thought the community rejected having pending changes in mainspace? No objection, since in my mind it's a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PC2012#RfCs_and_community-wide_discussions for the executive summary. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably expect more of that as well. Every Step of this long process has been listed at WP:CENT at the very least, yet somehow vast portions of the community are still under the impression that PC was rejected a long time ago. I don't know how that happened but we should be aware that some users will be genuinely shocked and possibly pissed off when they see it being used again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this header be updated? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It should probably just be de-linked as it is now entirely irrelevant. Another detail that was missed was the actual protection interface, which still has not one but two warnings not to use PC. I don't have a clue how to even edit such a page. Anyone know how to fix that? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It'll be via a MediaWiki page, but I don't know which one offhand (there at least four that contribute the various options an d menus on that interface). CBM (talk · contribs) or Amalthea (talk · contribs) might know (there are a handful of other admins who know their way around that namespace, but those two are active). Or you might get a knowledgeable lurker at VPT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will try that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there any chance of getting Pending Changes listed in the options under RPP in Twinkle? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure it will be, but may want to ask somewhere around WP:TW. Monty₈₄₅ 01:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I already left a request there earlier. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So, in terms of implementation, the RfC says that admins are allowed to use pending changes where there has been vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations. Does this have to be in response to a current problem or can we just merrily start adding PC to pages if they've had vandalism/BLP/copyvio issues in the past? If there are a few pages I keep an eye on that are (say) minor BLPs, can I just switch pending changes on for them, or do we have to wait until there's some incident? I'm so glad there was such an extensive RfC process, by the way, and now we are just flailing around trying to work out what the fuck needs to start being done. A+ for planning, D- for implementation. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd advocate turning them on as needed going forward. NE Ent 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but NE Ent's advice is good, especially for this stage of things. I'd make an exception if they're already under long-term SEMI due to previous problems, in which case I hope you'll consider "downgrading" the protection to PC on some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good! This is a good idea for low to moderate traffic articles with problems. I can see how it might not scale for high traffic articles, but for the unloved ones that crop up on OTRS this is progress. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, PC does not work well with high-traffic articles. (congratulations admins, you now have another slightly vague phrase people will endlessly try to argue with you about, as is already happening at RFPP!) I think slowly adding it as needed is best until we have a better idea of what the typical response time for review will be. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

23 hours in

23 hours after Pending Changes has gone live and we've got 10 articles under pending changes, of which 4 are indefinitely protected. Today, PC was added on Chris Nathaniel, B.o.B, Star Trek, Peyton List (actress born 1998), Victoria Justice, Zakir Naik and Puppy mill.

The pages Federal Analog Act, Islamic University of Gaza and A Scause for Applause seem to have had PC protection turned on from before today. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Some folks seem to have never got the memo that we weren't using it the last year and a half. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The stealthy way that this mess-of-a-concept was kept alive against consensus is not right. What do we have to do to fully kill it? North8000 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, three articles that were probably accidentally not taken off pending changes is all that is needed to declare months of discussion moot? That's some wackadoodle logic right there. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

PC protection was applied to those three articles on 6 September, 5 September, and 5 November respectively; it's much more of a "never got the memo" situation than a stealthy method of keeping it alive or accidentally not removing it. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that accusation is 100% Grade A Bullshit. There have been five RFCs in the last two years or so. Each one of them listed at WP:CENT the entire time they were open. Altogether several hundred users participated. Nothing stealthy about that, nothing against consensus about that either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's the problem really - if you tell someone that unless they call an orange, a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, you're going to electrocute them every 5 minutes - eventually they'll call that orange a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, just to get you to bugger off. PC went pretty much the same way - beaten into people until they said yes in an effort to get everyone to stfu about it through boredom. Fish^Barking? 22:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively PC went through a robust consensus process which frankly few other policy discussions went through including many recent ones, which are now taken as consensus even though there was a fair amount of opposition and large numbers never saw the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• It appears in all of these cases that the PC protection was added simultaneous with semi-protection (thus making it a non-issue for all but the Federal Analog Act article where the semi expired after several days). Looking at the instances, I think PC protection should be removed from the IUG and Scause for Applause articles as their rationales would not be supported by the current consensus, while the semi-protection on both articles is sufficient. The Federal Analog Act article seems to have PC protection that is consistent with the consensus approach and so it is fine to keep it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I did precisely that to Scause for Applause after a request at RFPP, not having seen this discussion. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be the first time that an administrator has picked the wrong listboxes in the protection user interface. I've done it myself — luckily noticing it before committing. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes protection icons

Like all protection methods that are displayed in the top right corner of a page, I have created {{pp-pc1}}, and {{pp-pc2}} to tag accordingly to protected pages.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• You've looked afterwards at the result of your handiwork and now know that those are confusing, problematic, and completely unnecessary, I hope. Pending changes already causes the appearance of something in the top right corner of a page: MediaWiki's own pending changes box (the "flagged revisions tag") that appears automatically. Your templates not only duplicate that badly (since MediaWiki's provides revision information that yours do not) but sit on top of the MediaWiki tag partly obscuring it and making it harder to read and to click on. You've positioned your icon right over the top of the flagged revisions' drop-down arrow in the Monobook skin, in fact, making it nearly impossible to click on. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Is there an explanation somewhere of why these protection templates are useful? Why not just have the software give the right messages on protected pages instead of introducing extraneous edits on pages people are monitoring? What purpose does it serve to add and remove a template? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I find the little icon handy, though I agree, it would be better if the software detected the protection status and applied the appropriate icon. Monty₈₄₅ 21:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I can't argue with your observation that you find them useful, but I still question their general utility. For pending changes, all readers already see a system header to that effect, regardless of whether their changes are auto-reviewed. For edit protection, those unable to edit see a "view source" tab with an explanatory hover-text; those able to edit see a protection warning when they try to edit. Are you saying that it is useful to you to know whether less privileged editors can edit a certain page when you are not attempting to edit it yourself? Or do the existing mechanisms not provide enough detail? Either way, it seems like something a gadget or script ought to be able to provide. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I do find it useful, as it can inform what is going on. Sure you can go view the history, but its not as easy to see the current status that way. Monty₈₄₅ 22:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
        • For the case of these templates and this form of protection, not only is it exactly as easy, it is easier, since there is more in the MediaWiki-provided information that is given automatically without need for any templates at all. The problem here is reinventing the existing MediaWiki UI, reinventing it badly, and reinventing it so that it obscures and denies access to the existing MediaWiki UI. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a request to discuss this side-issue at TFD with a link back to here. Please add any further comments there. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

History swap

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.

---

Could an admin do the history swap, after Talk:2008–2012 global recession#Requested move was closed by Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) (a non-admin) in violation of WP:RMNAC as move to Great Recession (which has a significant edit history). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Anybody there? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I have this situation wrong: Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) performed a non-admin move close as "MOVE"; the requirements for a NAC are:

• The closer has not participated in the discussion, nor recently participated in similar or related discussions. --He did not.--
• The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days). --Since there seems to be no disputing the close decision itself, I assume this was a good call.--
• No history merge or history swap is necessary. --A history merge swap IS needed, so he fails this criteria.--
• There are no more than a few associated subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talk page archives. --Meh, non-issue.--

After closing the discussion as "move", yet failing to actually complete the move, when his closure was undone and he was asked about it, he responded by RE-closing the RM and stating "I simply closed the thread. An admin can merge the history if xe feels it's necessary. WP:BURO.", and he still failed to ask any admin to actually complete the move. Therefore, it appears that:

• Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) erroneously closed the RM as a non-admin because a history merge swap is necessary, and should be cautioned about performing further RMNACs;
• An admin is needed to complete this move & perform a history merge swap.

Is this correct? Rgrds. --64.85.220.158 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a correct summary of the events. Except that a history swap is needed instead of histmerge (due to conflicting edits in the edit histories). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected to history swap. --64.85.220.158 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If we take the text of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions at face value that it is a guideline, despite not being tagged as a guideline, then its a case of violating a guideline. While guidelines should be followed in most cases, they lake the force of a policy, merely violating a guideline is not generally sufficient to reverse an action. The concept that a non-admin should not close a discussion in a way that requires an admin to act comes from exactly this sort of situation, unless an admin is willing to carryout the close, we are kind of stuck. That said, I've seen cases where non-admins have closed a discussion and then had an admin carry it out, but they were extremely experienced editors, and evidently rightly judged the willingness of an admin to do it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about the following?
  1. Perform the merge per April 2011 consensus
  2. Place {{histmerge}} on 2008–2012 global recession
  3. Place {{Db-move}} on Great Recession

Would that work? (Please note, I've not read the actual merge discussion, if that's relevant to the process.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Help with AIV bot(s)

Anyone know how to get the AIV bot to work properly again? It has stopped removing entries from WP:AIV after an admin blocks the account or IP. I posted run-on messages at the bot's talk page, but I don't think JamesR checks in that often at the moment. At present, we're removing blocked entries manually.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they are working sporadically, and currently dead. I also thought they seemed to be slower then usual the last few days. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to file a request for one or two new bots. Both bots' userpages link to the source code, so it shouldn't be that hard to create a couple of new ones. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The bots are back up now. Does this happen often enough that there is a pressing need for more clones? Legoktm (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are to be more clones, we better find a way to make sure they don't all go down at the same times... Monty₈₄₅ 00:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know why they are working again?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing something in the process hung and it finally got killed, at which point the toolserver re-started the job. But the operator would probably know better. Legoktm (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to have to assume I know nothing (not difficult sometimes). Who is the "operator"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Operator is JamesR, as you said above; bot userpages pretty much always have the name of the operator at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:HBC AIV helperbot5 is operated by User:JamesR (toolserver) and User:HBC AIV helperbot7 is operated by User:Wimt (apparently somewhere in Germany). Both of them would be the people to contact. It's probably worth seeing if we can get bots 1-4 & 6 back up too. Legoktm (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, you confused me, Legoktm, because, as Nyttend stated, I already contacted JamesR, so I assumed you meant someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

[Update to my last comment, not a reply to anything said since then] Per WP:BOTACC, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, who must be prominently identifiable on its user page." Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CFD backlog

Does any brave admin feel like taking a stab at the massive CfD backlog? There are over 200 discussions ready to be closed at this point, pretty much all of November. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Small stab taken; I got the 1 November discussion and the 19 November discussion. Part of the problem looks to be a large set of related nominations from the 14th to the 16th; they appear to have gotten lots of common themes from discussion to discussion, and closing them will likely be hard. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some work on it. I see that Good Olfactory is also hacking away at the backlog. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Slow speedy

Template:Allele has been in the speedy queue for over 24 hours. Why is it not yet deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it doesn't fit the G8 criterion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides, "Speedy" is anything less than 7 days. Please Hammer, don't tell me you're going back into your old AFD/CSD/PROD behaviours that have got you in trouble in the past - nom's like this one aren't too promising (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what his previous behavior was, but this CSD nom isn't so bad; just not what the criterion's for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It does too. It's dependent on Allele (band), which was deleted several times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to continue a discussion about the propriety of WK's action, here, I suppose that's up to you. But reversing an admin's determination on a speedy is inappropriate. I've removed the tag. Leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's not dependent on the article in the same way that a redirect to the article or its talk page is, which are the normal targets of G8. Navboxes are used on many different pages; that's their whole point. Now, this one won't be used, because none of the topics it would be used on are notable, but it's not dependent on a deleted page. I get why you did it, which is why I said above that it isn't so bad, but if you're angling for a SNOW/IAR speedy deletion, using a CSD criterion meant only for technical housecleaning is not the right way to go about it. Anyway, what's the harm of letting it sit through "God knows how long" at TfD? It's a template, it's not in mainspace, what's the urgent problem here? Let TfD do its thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I would also decline the speedy, WK simply beat me to it. GiantSnowman 16:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Because I've seen TFDs sit and sit and sit and sit AND SIT AND SIT AND SIT way too long. There's no point in keeping this one second longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• You asked why the template hadn't been deleted 24 hours after you tagged it. Now you have your answer. If you want to create a new CSD criterion for "useless template", I could see the logic there, but AN ain't the place for the discussion, and G8 ain't the criterion to shoehorn that into. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)TPH, your eagerness to delete lots of articles very quickly is concerning. GiantSnowman 16:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• TPH has now slapped a G6 on the template. Although it's a better criterion than a G8, I came close to declining it, in part because the real rationale is that the template is not useful, and if a G6 could be used for all such templates, than arguably there needs to be another T* criterion. Also, TPH's comment and about sitting too long is silly. As WK points out, who cares? It's not doing any harm. There's really an attitudinal problem here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• CSD declined. The addition was extremely POINTy and I strongly suggest TPH waits for the TFD discussion to finish. GiantSnowman 17:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Given the number of contributors to the template, and given reliable sources were found for the band, making it a "near miss" AfD, I'm not sure I'd call it "uncontroversial". I think you're just going to have to send it to TFD. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's already at TFD, was sent there 2 days ago. TPH is just impatient. GiantSnowman 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly disruptive to tag a page for uncontroversial speedy deletion when speedy deletion has just been declined twice. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like my original comment 2 lines down from TPH's original post (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are also still two articles that transclude the template. That's a very good reason to let the TfD run for a while. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

One of which is at AFD itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but until it is deleted, CSDing the template is not uncontroversial. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, you keep asking me what's the harm in letting this wait. Well, I ask: what's the harm in deleting it now? Why should it continue to stink up TFD for weeks? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we default to "keep", not to "delete". We keep things unless there is a reason to delete them, not delete them unless there is a reason to keep them. That a template is useless may in fact be a good reason to delete it, but consensus that it's useless is determined through a TfD, not a maintenance speedy deletion. TL;DR: burden of proof is on you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• As the editor who originally submitted this to TfD, I appreciate the discussion here as it has further educated me on the nuances of the CSD criteria. I reviewed the CSD guidelines prior to nominating and didn't see a clear fit for this scenario, so I went with TfD. After reading this discussion, I see clearer that G8 is a "technical housecleaning" criterion used primarily for the redirects and talk pages of deleted pages, and that the template in this case is not dependent on the deleted Allele (band) page. Writ Keeper's explanation here was particularly helpful. Thanks again to all.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

backlog at 3RR notice board

Resolved

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems caught up now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that was fast.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Avoiceformen.com from spam-blacklist

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.

---

• avoiceformen.com: 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

I've asked for the website avoiceformen.com to be removed from the spam-blacklist. My specific arguments refuting the grounds for denying the request have not been addressed. Instead my requests to engage in discussion to clarify the issues have resulted in the request being declined repeatedly with no useful feedback. I'm hoping to engage the community to clarify this issue.

Firstly the Houston, TX based website avoiceformen.com was abused on wikipedia by an Australia based spammer some time ago. I agreed that the individual's behavior was improper, but argued that banning such an important website for the behavior of an unrelated user is as unhelpful as banning Youtube because of a single channel. Removing the blacklist on avoiceformen.com is important to my efforts to document the "manosphere" from a neutral perspective. For clarity the "manosphere" is a broad focus area, with some communities interested in men's rights, and others interested in Game/seduction who oppose the men's rights movement, it is not a single purpose issue. However as the largest men's rights website in the manosphere, avoiceformen.com is indispensable to that documentation effort. The editors declined to remove avoiceformen.com from the blacklist on the basis of wikipedias policies on: External links, Verifiable, Reliable, Notable Sources, and pointed out a possible violation of Biographies of living persons

I responded on various talk pages that:

• Wikipedia's policy states that avoiceformen.com can be linked as an external source for articles about itself

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

• The subject's website can be used as a source

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites.

• The manosphere is notable

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Avoiceformen.com has been described by the SPLC (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere". Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source. The SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. The manosphere is also notable in that it has been mentioned in mainstream media publications like Huffington Post, Business Insider, Reason Magazine, and All Voices, among others.

I argue that whether or not one considers the manosphere to be "fringe" is irrelevant. I have clearly stated I do not intend to represent that the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, are valid. I do not intend to represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere. I have stated my intention is solely to document the manosphere, and represent their claims as their own in as balanced a manner as possible. Avoiceformen.com is certainly a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. Since a reputable source identifies avoiceformen.com as part of the manosphere, and the manosphere is notable, avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for a notable topic.

I would appreciate any guidance or feedback on this issue.

The earlier discussion on the blacklist is here: Ethicalv (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the manosphere isn't "notable" by Wikipedia standards, and we don't have any reliable sources to write about it. Even its proponents acknowledge that it exists only because of male bloggers writing about it, the same bloggers writing for "A Voice for Men", an activist, alternative news outlet. However, even that outlet isn't "notable" by our standards. It seems like there's no good reason to remove the link from the blacklist. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could share the reasoning by which you reconcile the statement "the manosphere isn't notable" with the fact that it has been written about in major mainstream media, some of which I linked above. Those articles did not mention the manosphere in passing. They were about the manosphere in their entirety. This certainly qualifies as the "significant" coverage required in wikipedia's Notability policy. And you did repeat the same argument I refuted above that avoiceformen.com is not a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. If you disagree with the reasoning I gave, stating that avoiceformen.com is definitely considered a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com according to wikipedia's policies, I would appreciate if you would explicitly provide your reasoning. Ethicalv (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did. Those "links" are not about the "manosphere" nor do they lend notability to the concept or to Avoiceformen.com. The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center in their Spring 2012 Intelligence Report.[81] "A Voice for Men" are also named in the report. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A voice for men is redlinked for a reason ... a couple passing mentions in mainstream media aren't sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which are fairly high. NE Ent 00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A redlink isn't cause for it to be on the spam-blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@EthicalvThis seems a little backwards to me. We don't have pages for Manosphere or avoiceformen.com, do we? So why would we need to link to their official websites? Honestly, I doubt that they're notable to begin with, but I'd suggest you delay your efforts to get their website off the blacklist for use in an external links section until after we actually have pages on them (ideally until after their pages have survived deletion discussions). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this comment seems a little backwards to -me-. The default isn't for links to be on the spam-blacklist, only to be removed when certain conditions are met. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there was a good reason to add this group to the blacklist and yet, still no good reason to remove them. I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation. Finally, we have a giant heaping dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Before starting this thread, User:Ethicalv was informed about the notability problems on his talk page. He ignored that information and decided to assert notability once again. It's interesting how the actions of an "Australian spammer" got this non-notable site blacklisted and how the actions of Ethicalv are indistinguishable from the spammer—asking the same questions over and over again, hoping to get a different response. He did this on the blacklist discussion as well. Note, if the user could point to a single reliable source that is part of avoiceformen.com that could conceivably be used as a source on Wikipedia, that would be appreciated. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there isn't one, so this entire discussion seems to be about how to best get the site removed from the blacklist so that the spamming can begin again. Not good. You want to talk about how women are oppressing you? Great, do it on your private website, not here. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(SO MANY EC'S)There may have been good reasons to blacklist this, yes. I don't know the full history here, but looking at the spam-blacklist page, there are quite a few different options other than putting them on the list. Were any of these tried?Notability in this case is a red herring in regards to it being on the list or not. As far as this person being the spammer, no idea, but if so, the second option of 'Will blocking a single user solve the problem?' seems more logical. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this intrusion is not unwelcome, but I tried to help the user before by pointing out that "Manosphere" is a neologism and getting avoiceformen unblacklisted is not likely to help him document the so-called cause. Even a Google search for "manosphere movement" only turns up results that say it is not a movement, and even the AVoiceforMen website itself defines it as a collection of websites, etc, and usually more specifically as a "phenomenon". I don't want to quote from a blacklisted website but it is worth considering this, EthicalV. -Wieldthespade (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, I think his reasoning is pretty...bad. Heck, I think the site itself is terrible. But again, your question really has nothing to do with it being on the blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've checked out the website, and I can't think of any remotely conceivable reason we would ever link to it in a WP article. Nor has the OP provided any. I do see a plausible potential for further abuse should it be delisted. I therefore see no possible reason to delist the site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I think a good argument could be made that the site itself could have an article. It does have multiple mentions in some RS's. I still think that's a red herring though. Arkon (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon, Mark Arsten: I created a page for the manosphere in my ongoing effort to document it. It is awaiting approval. This blacklisting was causing trouble. That's how the issue came up.

@Arkon I agree that a website shouldn't be blacklisted by default. Thanks for your clarification.

@Viriditas. You said:

"The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups".

My point is that those groups were EXPLICITLY identified in the SPLC and those mainstream media articles as a phenomenon noted as the "manosphere". They were not just called "misogynistic hate groups".

And those sites identified are also notable independently of the manosphere. Game/Seduction Blogger Roosh for example (who has been written about in newspaper articles, and talked about on TV shows around the world) is certainly notable. Avoiceformen.com has been mentioned in CBS News, Ms. Magazine, Bangor Daily News, and the New York Times.

Furthermore it is worthwhile to consider whether those groups themselves would be a more accurate source of their own opinions. Taking Roosh for example, without in any way advocating for his positions, it's useful that his blog should be allowed as an authoritative source of his own opinions to maintain balance. While wikipedia accepted sources like the SPLC may identify him as a dangerous hate criminal, he may or may not express a different opinion on whether seducing women qualifies him for being put on a list that the SPLC normally reserved for terrorists.

@Viriditas. You said:

"I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation..

There is no evidence it is a one man operation and strong evidence to suggest it is not. The website lists a staff as well as listing podcasts and an associated radio station.

@Viriditas. You said:

"Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one.

I would ask that we tone down the provocative and highly conflictual language. We are all working towards a common goal of making wikipedia better. My answer is that regardless of whether the content on the site is objectionable, "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. That is the entire argument that I have not received a reply from you on. Ethicalv (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To summarize:

• "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com
• avoiceformen.com is notable
• whether or not one agrees with the opinions expressed on avoiceformen.com is irrelevant to documenting them in a neutral way

Ethicalv (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Adviceformen would indeed be a valid source to use in an article about the website. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be an article about the website. If there ever is an article about the website, what generally happens is the blacklist entry is altered to allow the main page of the site to be linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethicalv, the solution is and has been very simple. Create an article about avoiceformen that does not get deleted, and you will have shown it's worth removing from the blacklist. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make this my last comment on this, unless someone asks me some questions. I really am not a fan of the fact that we went straight to the nuclear option on this. Putting a site on the blacklist is suppose to be "the last resort". Arkon (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the site is not even a reliable source about themselves, as it is unduly self-serving. See WP:SELFPUB. Basically, everything on the site is completely and utterly worthless for any conceivable purpose in WP, especially as the site itself is extremely unlikely to meet our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu said:

"the site is not even a reliable source about themselves

Your statement appears to set your own personal preference over wikipedia's entire set of written policies saying otherwise. Wikipedia's policies ensure polite collaboration between editors. None of us is meant to set our own "law of the jungle". In any case I believe we're reached concensus from those who have actually addressed the issue that avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for itself. That is progress. Ethicalv (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon: I agree that it was highly improper to "go straight to the nuclear option". What can we do about this? Someguy1221 suggested to write an article about it that didn't get deleted, and that would be grounds for removing the ban. However that seems very backwards. One could invest much time in creating content that was in the end just banned. It would be helpful to address the issue up front. Ethicalv (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I'm not sure blacklisting really affects a whole lot here. If you want to use the site as a source in an article about the webpage while it's blacklisted, just fill in the Cite web template but don't include the url. To be honest though, I think you might find it to be a waste of time if you try to start new pages about men's rights websites. They'll most likely be deleted--sorry, but we have fairly high inclusion standards for websites. Why not spend your time trying to improve the existing articles in Category:Men's rights? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arkon was wrong in their observation - this site was blacklisted in October for good reason. Why are we still talking about this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We are still talking about this because we are being trolled silly. Ethicalv is singularly focused on reviving blacklisted websites and restoring deleted articles by rewriting them with unreliable sources. Look at how long this nonsense has been going on just over at Mangina. The absurdity continues with declined AfC versions of Manosphere, Mangina, Dalrock, female solipsism, rationalization hamster, NAWALT, white knight, marriage strike, beta provider, and who could forget, cock carousel. At some point someone is going to need to put a fork in this and say it's done. He won't listen, and doesn't care what the guidelines or policies say. He's playing games by forum shopping back and forth, asking the same questions over and over again, and trying to find someone who will contradict what everyone has already told him several times. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is the proper venue for evaluating links to individual pages for white-listing on a case-by-case basis. If Ethicalv can come up with any single page on avoiceformen.com that can conceivably be used as a reliable source in an article, then that page will receive fair consideration and likely be white-listed. There is no need for further discussion here. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Okip socking

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

---

I have just blocked a number of socks used by Okip (talk · contribs) to abuse the XfD processes. I gave Okip themself a two-week block, but given the relatively long history of that editor (previously as Ikip) I thought it best to bring the matter here for examination.

Blocked socks:

• Dragdrag (talk · contribs)
• Calendar2 (talk · contribs)
• Spoildead (talk · contribs)

All are  Confirmed with checkuser (and, in the case of the link to Okip, also through a supressed revision). — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is quite sad. I know Ikip/Okip positions are controversial, but I thought he had more integrity. I hope he understands his errors and goes back. This route is not going to bring him any good. --Cyclopia^talk 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I reached the same conclusion on this following a non-CU trail (including one account that Coren didn't list, but did block). Here's what I've found, working backwards from present edits along the trail:

Down the rabbit hole

In November 2012, Spoildead continues a conversation at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Batman_tas&action=history started by Calendar2, as if he was the same person Calendar2 made edits to Scentura from 2011-2012 Scentura was created by user:Calendar in 2007. Calendar maintains the article through June 2009. Calendar2 says that he is Calendar and created the article. An oversighted edit directly links Calendar and Ikip to each other In June, 2009, Ikip is blocked. Calendar also disappears in June 2009. Ikip is listed as an alternate account of Okip Which circles us back to October 2012, where Okip expressed a sentiment that sounds a whole lot like what Spoildead's been saying today in ARS-related discussions this week

Given the length of the socking here, and the fact that it's being used to push a philosophy as well as attack others (see Spoildead's behavior in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)), I would support an indefinite block for Ikip/Okip based on the combination of disruptive history and long-term deceptive socking. This does not appear to be a person who has any interesting in playing by community rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question Do you mean that Dragdrag and Calendar2 were also abusing XFD? All I can see for Calendar is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scentura (2nd nomination), and nothing at all for Dragdrag. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that these accounts have been used in serious violation of WP:SOCK. The one discussion where I see an overlap (the user talk page of Batman tas) was rather trivial. Did I miss something? Simply having other accounts with trivial overlaps in editing shouldn't be cause for a swath of blocks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It looks to me like Spoildead is the account that was being used to abuse the XfD process in furtherance of Ikip's preferred inclusionism POV. Note, for example, that I warned Spoildead about making personal attacks and accusations against delete voters on XfDs, behavior which Ikip has a history of being blocked for - it appears to me he was using Spoildead to make problematic edits to XfDs that he knew Ikip/Okip wouldn't get away with. Calendar2 appears to have been used mostly to maintain Scentura, Calendar a combination of Scentura and various health and video game articles, and Dragdrag LGBT-related articles. Per a Wikistalk report, however, [I|O]kip and the Calendar accounts have crossed repeatedly on articles and noticeboards. Absent Spoildead's behavior, it could be argued that this set of socks was a sort of inept way of compartmentalizing different genre edits (though they do often violate the part of WP:SOCK that says socks shouldn't edit project space - Calendar, Calendar2, and Spoildead all have done so - and some of them don't stay consistently in one genre or another), but Spoildead pushes it over the line to "purposely using an account so people would not know that the person making attacks and accusations was someone who had a history of making attacks and accusations". It's standard procedure to block an entire sockfarm when found, even if some of the socks haven't broken policies otherwise - remember, these are all one person, and blocks are intended for users, not accounts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If several of the accounts have been disruptive, it's a textbook violation of WP:SCRUTINY - spreading out one's policy violations over multiple accounts so as not appear to be so disruptive an editor that a block is in order. I'm not familiar with any of the accounts here, except from skimming through the ARS MfD, but if more than one of them has been disruptive, than it sounds like a pretty standard application of SOCK. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Participation in AFDs at all with a sock account is a serious violation of WP:SOCK. Per WP:ILLEGIT, alternate accounts cannot edit project space. Compound that with the fact that he was using the alternate to edit project space pertaining to the ARS, and you have about as serious of a violation as you can achieve.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• For someone who references the "letter of the law" you seem to get it wrong. It says "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies". It is only in reference to "undisclosed" accounts, and it's not even an absolute rule. Alternate accounts routinely edit project space, including arbitration-related pages, and nothing happens. And you want to indef someone for "breaking" this "rule"? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, upon further investigation, I think there are some serious violations from back in 2009. Calendar created the article List of zombie novels, apparently also contributing to it with an IP account, and Ikip argued vociferously to keep the article when it was at articles for deletion apparently without ever disclosing his connection with the other account. Still, that is a bit stale. Unless there are some recent instances where any of these accounts have been used in serious violation, I am still not seeing the basis for present action on the basis of sockpuppetry. If it is on the basis of recent disruption with the other accounts being blocked to prevent their use for evasion then I would understand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's recent as well. Spoildead has been used to canvass ARS supporters.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Spoildead's current behavior in itself makes it an abuse of alternate accounts, really (serious evasion of scrutiny, and frankly disruptive behavior even in isolation); that the other accounts have also been improperly used in project space simply makes it straightforward sockpuppetry in my estimation. I think Okip really should stay to one account at this point, given that he now has a track record of abusing alternates. — Coren ^(talk) 18:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Based on Ikip's block log and the long history of socking, I see no reason to tolerate this editor's presence. I'd change that two-week block to indefinite.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now that I think about it, given that the MfD concerns ARS where Ikip was previously disruptive, it does some reasonable to consider the involvement of the Spoildead account to be a very serious violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK, as well as the letter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing less than a six-month block pbp 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indefinite block, we've had enough of his disruptive behavior, and this is much worse than normal sockpuppetry on articles as it undermindes the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have to say this really pisses me off. I was helping that supposed new account with an article they created. Now it turns out it was an experienced user pretending they didn't know how to put a real article together, (or maybe he really didn't after all this time?) and one of the worst of the worst of the ARS "battleground mentality" set at that. I have been trying to help that project move back towards a more mainstream approach and away from the overly confrontational unhelpful approach that user like Okip/Ikip/travb/inclusionist/whoever he is this week and others perpetuated there in the past. His last post under his actual name there was essentially to try and turn this back, to encourage newer members to confront and harass anyone who claimed they had a battleground mentality. Okip just doesn't get it. He has "rage quit" several times, and now this, and possibly more going back years. He is a negative influence on this project and the ARS in particular. They need help finding their way to being a project that is about content, not fighting and dirty tricks, for their sake as much as the rest of WP, open the door, push him through it, close it and lock it. In other words, indef block, at least six months before any appeal per WP:OFFER, and then it should only be considered if he agrees to permanently limit himself to one account only, and not to engage in WP:BATTLE behavior ever again.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I only ever met User:Dragdrag who put up a good article on a drag race, and which i helped him/her with. It's a shame it's come to this but it appears as a violation of WP:Scrutiny and WP:Sock. I'm not saying this editor should go unpunished in any way, but can we settle on a 6 month ban at most giving the editor time to change or think this over? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Per the comments above, I've just re-blocked with an indefinite expiry, and I've suggested that Okip pursue the Wikipedia:Standard offer unblock requirements. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indef - He and A Nobody were the worst of the lot, toxic presences here we're better off without. Socking and game-playing to get one's way cannot be tolerated. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair, while I was at complete odds with A Nobody at times, they at least remained calm; protracted in comments, yes, but far from what I've seen Ikip/Okip put out. Socking around blocks definitely puts Okip in the long-term/indef block range. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious block - He gamed the system people, its despicable behavior, there's no debate. I shoulda realized that was him creating a bit of controversy at the MfD, which would only backfire against the consensus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support the indef block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block: No excuse for sock-puppetry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If he follows the standard offer conditions, I think there's a decent chance that he could be unblocked in six months. "Indefinite" is not necessarily "permanent". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Indef Disclosure: I was one of the ones arguing with the Canvassing/Gaming sock The editor is clearly gaming our system in every way they can to achieve their goals. In light of the history, and now deceit, I think an indef is called for. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to unblock with conditions, or per the standard offer when they are convinced it will work. Monty₈₄₅ 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Immediate unblock It's good to see admins like Beeblbrox seem to have the Rescue squad's best interests at heart, but it might be nice if we're allowed to decide for ourselves whether we'd like to keep Okip? Okip is in fact a huge asset both to the ARS and the whole of Wikipedia. He's generally an excellent strategist. Benji was great but I've often thought we'd have achieved even more if Ikip had been our defacto leader. He's also good at encouraging people with well worded barnstars. Ikip has a really sweet nature too. I partly agree its ideal to discourage socking, but the best way to do that is to start being kinder and more gentle to fellow editors, rather than issuing harsh sanctions for no compelling reason. Its very encouraging news if Ikip has renewed interest in Wikipedia as for a long time it looked like we'd lost him to semi retirment. In recognition of this we ought to immediately unblock his Okip account, though with no blame to Coren, as in most cases a 2 week block for this sort of socking was most reasonable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "strategist"? "leader"? As someone who has managed to rescue articles for approaching a decade without any requirement whatsoever for strategists or leaders, I say that you are putting forth completely muddledheaded tripe here, and exhibiting exactly the sort of utterly warped thinking about and attitude towards writing an encyclopaedia that causes so much trouble from so few. (Indeed, it has been Ikip promoting these bad ideas to suggestible people that has long been part of the problem.) You're not a militia. This isn't a war. Stop this pseudo-militaristic nonsense now, please. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Like. I've been beating that drum for a while, but Mr. Huxtable seems a bit lost in a fantasy world where the ARS is battling dragons and people like Okip and ANobody are the white knights. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In his very last post from his main account, Okip said we ought to address head on these false projections of a battlefield mentality onto the rescue squad. I often ignore this sort of comment as doubt sensible folk take them seriously, but out of respect for Okip will make an exception and honour his wish.

UncleG, there's all kinds of groups that have their effectiveness increased by the guidance of leaders and strategy, yet are totally peaceful. Such groups outnumber the military many times over. All respect to you if you've a decades long track record of saving articles while working independently. But please keep in mind that squad members sometimes like to operate collectively, in recognition of the fact that it can be far harder to save an article than to destroy it. Im not denying I see editors like Okip and Anobody as heroes, but remember not all heroism of a martial nature. Dont want to give the impression you're totally wrong, its just you've overstated your point. Editing Wikipedia does sometimes involve an element of contention. Several of our guidelines recognize this. The important thing is not to pretend we all want the same thing, but rather to avoid attacking others just as they seem to have different perspectives, and to work together to build an encyclopaedia that balances views from different, sometimes opposing sources, thus achieving neutrality. Please try to avoid accusing fellow editors of having "completely muddleheaded" and "utterly warped" thinking. That kind of rhetoric isnt helpful to the collegial environment best needed for building an encyclopaedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Collectively" can sometimes be perceived by others as being tantamount to a breach of WP:CANVASS: swamping a discussion, for example, without much more than a "keep it because it already exists" argument. I've had a recent experience of ARS that was far from pleasant because of a collective mentality that was at odds with the facts and displayed a complete lack of understanding regarding the subject. It was a horrendous waste of time. Socks are bad, period. If Okip and their alter egos are disrupting in the way that has been stated here then indef' is the correct response. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Feyd, the fact that you do not see the irony in Okip's last posting at ARS [82] speaks volumes to your own mentality. The message he sent was "people who say we have a battleground mentality are the enemy and must be confronted and have it explained to them at length why they are wrong" which perfectly demonstrates the very mentality he was claiming not to have. I can't remember the exact quote but someone once said something to the effect that if a group is extreme enough it becomes impossible to distinguish their actual beliefs from an ironic parody of those beliefs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note, he never said that. Don't put something in quotation marks if no one actually said those words. That's misleading. Why not actually read what you linked to? "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". There is no battleground mentality in the ARS. Dream Focus 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're thinking of Poe's law. Doesn't really apply to the squad, as we tend to have moderate and tolerant views on almost everything. And from where Im sitting, while you may think you understand our mentality, in reality you're not even close. Okip was alluding to Lennin, and making a deep strategic point, contrasting the great man's understanding of practical reality with the high minded postion some academics take about it being best to ignore attacks.

To answer your question from below on whether we'd call for an indeff if it had been a deletionist caught socking, the answer, at least in my case, is no. There's only two times Ive been aware of such discussions. With Jack, I wanted to oppose a block as for me his excellent contributions easily outweigh the negative stuff, but I stayed out of it as some Squad members have strong feelings about interactions between Jack and a certain legendary editor (which I don't know the full details of, as it was before my time). In the other case, which was back in 2010, I made a plea for leniency. Socking is often harmful, but IMO opinion rarely justifies long term blocks for editors who are otherwise constructive, regardless of where they are on the Inc/Del spectrum.

It's probably a waste of time to think we could gain better understanding of each other by txt based discussions, no matter how lengthy. Some of the reasons for this are alluded to in the Poe's law article. Despite disagreeing with almost everything you say, you seem an honest person, and I was most impressed with your tactics in pushing through the pending changes RFC. If you're ever in London, Id be happy to treat you to a beer or coffee and spend an hour chatting with you. If not, well understanding other peoples thinking is far from essential. As long as we interact respectfully, different perspectives are actually a good thing for building a quality encyclopaedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I got an email from him asking "Can you post this for me? thank you."
• On behalf of Okip:

  Hello. At around Wednesday, 5 December 2012 8 I alerted Jclemens, Casliber and NewYorkBrad about the sockpuppetry, asking their advice on what I should do. Without this email to Jclemens, Jclemens would have never known about this sock and never would have posted this checkuser on 22:02, 12 April 2010.

  Lesson learned for all those wikipedians who are in listening range: Don't ask for Jclemens help unless you want to be thrown under the bus.

  I know I did wrong, I know I crossed the line, that is why I emailed Arbitors for help. I don't care about being blocked. Thank you.

• I see that he didn't use any two accounts at the same time. Dragdrag was only used for one day. Special:Contributions/Dragdrag I believe he stated he was spending too much time on Wikipedia and asked for his Ikip account to have its password scrambled, then returned later on as Okip. I thought he had retired from Wikipedia after that. I would like to know why exactly he did this, instead of just using one account. Seems to have no reason for this. Dream Focus 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is deeply disappointing. Jclemens was once Okips mentor, I remember how happy many of us were when he steped up, as he seemed so wise and reasonable. Will have a think about whether I should contact Clemens to see if there is an explanation, otherwise Im going to have to amend my arb vote. I usually find it easy to forgive almost any human flaw, but if theres one thing I cant abide its a traitor. FeydHuxtable (talk)
    • I can't speak for Coren's investigation, but mine had nothing to do with Jclemens (or Casliber, or Newyorkbrad, for that matter) - I saw Spoildead disrupting rather vociferously on the ARS XfDs, thought his behavior was suspiciously non-new-user-ish, and went looking for what was going on. The evidence was right there to find, no secrets from ex-mentors needed. As for the rest of Okip's email, I can't make any sense of what "2010 checkuser" he's talking about, but whatever it is, I don't think it's relevant. Given that Spoildead continued to edit right up through today (a day after he claims he emailed the confession to arbs), it sounds like whether Okip knew he was doing wrong or not, he kept doing it until he was forced to stop. Not exactly something that engenders trust that he won't do it again, or even that he really understands that it was a bad thing to be doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Hi Fluff, no one suspects you of being an agent of Clemens in this, hope it didnt come across like that. You're right Okips email wasnt especially coherent, but then he woudlnt be human if he wasnt feeling a little emotional right now. After all his long years of hard unpaid labor for Wikipedia, he seems to be at risk of a permaban for socking, which while reprehensible, seems minor compared to what others have got away with. As for Clemens, I did suggest there might be an explanation, you're right he might be innocent in this. Still, it wouldnt be the first time he's took highly questionable actions against outstanding article rescuers. Anyhow, I feeling a little distressed about this myself too; in my previous edit I didnt even sign properly which I dont think has happened before.I better sign of and not come back till Ive calmed down. Thanks for your comment though, I agree one ought not to rush to judgment, hope no one switches to opposing Clemens before confirming the facts. PS - Okip, if you do end up blocked, thanks very much for all you've done for us and best of luck for the future! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I've notified the three arbitrators that they have been mentioned and that one is being discussed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Reaper, good to see from the below that jclemens appears blameless for this disaster. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Wait, what? What does jclemens have to do with any or this (or any other arb for that matter)? Fluffernutter did an investigation into what she saw as a clear case of socking. I did a parallel investigation (with checkuser) and arrived at the same result. I blocked. None of this has anything to do with arbitration or arbitrators, or a putative checkuser two years ago. — Coren ^(talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef If there was a legitimate reason for socking I would be comfortable with the two weeks. The explanation given above via email to Dream Focus makes little sense, and the only thing of substance seems to be a personal attack aimed at Jclemens. As for the request for an immediate unblock from Feyd above... not going to happen. The rules against socking apply to all users, though you are welcome to try and change the policies to make an exception for members of the ARS. Try and remember that Wikipedia isn't a battlefield. Frankly, standing up when a friend or ally breaks the rules shows much more character than turning a blind eye and ignoring the rules just because someone agrees with you. AniMate 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • How many times over the years did Jack Merridew keep getting away with things far worse than this? Unlike Jack, who harassed peopled and was unrepentant, Okip made a simple mistake, and admitted it. Would anyone have even noticed if he said nothing about this? Dream Focus 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I see no acceptance of responsibility for the latest socking, or the misbehavior of those socks. Monty₈₄₅ 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right about Merridew, and having taken a step back from some of this infighting, I have to say there are very few circumstances under which I can see myself supporting a return of his editing privileges, even with a standard offer. Again, if there was a legitimate reason for Okip to sock, I'd gladly hear it and reconsider, though it mostly looks like he was trying to avoid scrutiny. AniMate 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock The Calendar account was last used on June 2009. We are punishing him for something that happened more than three years ago? Dragdrag as I said was only used for one day. His latest account is the only one he is using, not double voting with it and Okip at the same time or anything. I see some familiar names trying to block him, who I believe are against him for his work in the ARS in the past, having argued with him years ago. We're discussing blocking him for the sockpuppets only, nothing else, and so far, I see nothing that would warrant such a harsh sentence. Dream Focus 22:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this is about the extremely disruptive behavior of the Spoildead sock, which was disrupting wikipedia over the last few days. Monty₈₄₅ 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you point to some diffs? I looked through them and don't see anything. He contacted some regular participates at the ARS to inform them it was at AFD. Nothing wrong with that. Was there something else? Dream Focus 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef I hate to do this, because I have great sympathy for Ikip/Okip philosophy and point of view on many things. However, I can't support years-long sockpuppetry used to sway consensus. I am especially appalled given that he should have known that this would only bring further controversy on the ARS and surely not help his causes. I do not support the indef block because I don't want to see him again: I support it because he has to show his good faith by accepting WP:OFFER and demonstrate he is, indeed, a valuable editor who doesn't need socking. I hope he'll be reasonable and do that -and I hope that, if he will be, admins will gracefully unblock him. --Cyclopia^talk 22:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  What's this "years of sockpuppetry used to sway consensus"? There are three accounts. One which hasn't been used in over three years, one which was used for only one day in October, and his latest he has been using through parts of November to the present. Dream Focus 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• For the record, I did receive an e-mail from Okip/Ikip a day or two ago, as he indicates above. I have been focused on other business this week such as answering election questions, and had not yet had the opportunity to study the issues raised by the e-mail and to formulate a reply or decide advice to give or what else to do with the information I'd been provided. And since I still haven't had the chance to study up, no comment on the block or anything else, except to point out that if people were able so quickly to figure out who the new account was, it presumably was engaged in the same behavior as the previous account(s). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I received a similar--possibly the same, Newyorkbrad and I didn't compare--email from Okip. That email arrived in my inbox at the same time that investigations by other functionaries had come to the conclusion (correct, apparently) that Spoildead was Ikip/Okip. I took part in no decisions of sanctions, since I participate in article rescue and while I've never been fond of hyper-inclusionism, it could be perceived as a conflict of interest for me to be involved at all, especially since I'd been invited to the discussion by one of the parties. As such, this is my only plan to contribute to the discussion--to clarify what role I did and did not take. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Just confirming, discussion and review on all this began late on December 4th UTC on the functionaries-en mailing list. A functionary (not one of the ones Okip emailed) emailed the list requesting that someone double-check their conclusions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ithink it is unfortunate that Okip chose to try and smear you on his way down. It seems pretty clear you had nothing to do with this. It also seems pretty clear that the only people so far who support an unblock are other more radical ARS users who miss the bad old days, and even in this very thread speak of Okip as a good tactician and leader of their struggle. It's too bad they can't see that Okip, like several other radical inclusionists before him, apparently felt the ends justified the means and that socking to "Winn the battle" is ok. The message here is clear, that is not ok, no matter how many articles you rescued before or after doing it. As I said on the ARS talk page, it is time to leave that mentality in the past where it belongs and to speak out against unethical behavior all the more loudly if it comes from someone closely assosciated with the ARS. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef, support for one or two years. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your position. An indef block for socking is often successfully appealed after only six months with no repeat offenses. Are you saying a definite block of one to two years, or just a normal block with a set expires but still subject to normal means of appeal? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like indefs on principle. Even a fixed term of one or two years could be appealed, but I think there always should be a fixed limit for non-technical blocks. Someday, I'll write up my argument, but for now, I'll just register that I won't support indefs like this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks for clarifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Speaking of Benjiboi, it has been awhile since anyone turned up a crop of his socks. Historically, 71.139.0.0/19 has been one of the ranges he frequented. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef- with the caveat that indef means "as long as necessary" and not "forever". Reyk _YO! 08:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indefinite block. If and when he wishes to resume editing (legitimately), he should have to explain his previous behaviour and convince an administrator and the community why he should be believed when he says he will never again abuse the trust of the community and disrupt the project. Until he makes that case, he should remain blocked indefinitely. jæs (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. As I understand it, Okip/Ikip had multiple accounts to try to keep his editing under control. There doesn't seem to have been significant overlap between these accounts and the new accounts don't seem to have done much. The editor seems understand that he's gone too far in having so many accounts and so a reasonable next step would be to ask him to stick to one of them and then watch what happens, per WP:ROPE. Other editors such as Jack Merridew have been indulged much more even though they were more extreme and displayed little contrition. It would be unfair to come down on a minor infraction like a ton of bricks when others have been given more slack. Warden (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indef and hold a very strict standard for return Obvious outcome given the extensive use of multiple identities to edit wikipedia space. The desperate tactics of the usual ARS suspects (with one honourable exception) to smear other users and distract attention from the main issue is a classic exposition of why allowing any cliques (whether inclusionist or deletionist) to organise/coordinate their AFD votes is a really bad idea. Maybe its time to look at the ARS again? MFD anyone? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  The ARS is at AFD now, so feel free to join in. There is no one organize/coordinate their AFD votes, that just ridiculous. I'll leave that discussion elsewhere where it belongs though. No one is trying so "smear other users" just by mentioning how ridiculous that some of the same people that kept taking the side of a notorious sockpuppet master and letting him get away with one blatant abuse after another for years, are now being so harsh towards someone who did something far more minor, and perhaps with a decent reason Warden mentioned. When some of these people also take a swipe at the ARS every chance they get, I have to wonder if so many of them would being showing up to comment here and be so critical of Okip if he wasn't part of the ARS. Dream Focus 13:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dream, I understand your frustration, but really, socking is indefensible. If another guy got away with it, then that is the problem, it's not an excuse to forgive Okip's socking. Two wrongs don't make one right. --Cyclopia^talk 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Double standard, someone they like gets away with things, while someone they hate gets the most severe punishment. I'm not arguing against punishment, I just think it rather severe to say to make it permanent. Dream Focus 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• And also, the fact he's part of a wikiproject many editors and admins criticize should have called for more attention to an impeccable behaviour, not less. By doing this, he damaged the ARS a lot, bringing shame on it in the eyes of many. While I agree the actions of single editors have to be judged individually and independently from the wikiproject, these episodes only make the situation of ARS objectively worse. I don't want to see the ARS as a gang who defends their own members even when caught with dirty hands. --Cyclopia^talk 13:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please dont say such hurtful things about Okip, he might be reading this discussion! His value to the ARS was too great for words. Socking is unwise and I dont even have to ask Dream to know he doesnt agree with it either. But its very far from an unforgivable sin. Compared to attacking others with hurtful personal remarks, needlessly destroying others hard work and depriving readers of useful articles, etc etc, it's really rather minor. I remember reading our policy on socking back in 2008 and it was quite relaxed about the subject, listing all kinds of reasons why its Okay to sock. If you want to stop socking, make the Wikipedia a kinder, fairer and more reasonable place. Most only seem to sock as they want to do something about perceived injustice while also prefering to avoid intense confrontation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Feyd, he brought the hurtful on himself. You (and he) know that editors close to ARS are scrutinized much more than others. You know what happened when A Nobody and Benji were caught using less-than-impeccable methods to bring on their philosophy. I see the ARS as a positive project, but many don't: and if it becomes more and more associated with editors that resort to socking to push debates, then all the "value to the ARS" they brought becomes wasted by their actions. We should be the first to call for objectivity and integrity, because if we don't, then the critics gain momentum. Let's hope Okip abides by WP:OFFER and comes back with us acknowledging his mistakes. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll never see Okip as a negative to the ARS or Wikipedia, but your last post does make perfect sense. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef for long-term disruption, of which the recent socking is just one example. In addition, anyone who, at the top of his user page, defends the practice of violating copyright has no business being here. Deor (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• If anyone wants to close this Id no longer object, even if its a non admin. With even some squad members taking a hard line on socking, I dont suppose theres much chance of getting Okip unblocked, at least until enough time has passed for a WP:Offer. I only re opened before as I felts its unacceptable to indef such an excellent editor after such a short discussion, without anyone having a chance to put in a good word. Always felt bad that Benji was perma banned without any sympathetic editors being able to speak up for him.. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Feyd, didn't you find it strange that Benjiboi abandoned his main account for no apparent reason and began editing only with sockpuppets? Do you think he suspected that the Benjiboi account was about to be banned for other reasons? I do, but I know some stuff that you don't. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes we did find it strange, but the squad have been fairly sure we've understood our former leaders actions for more than a year now. Exactly 3 years before this thread was opened, you yourself started a thread on this very board which saw considerable hostility expressed towards Benji from various WR accounts and their allies. With Benjis keen appreciation of the situations tactical reality, he understood that trying to stand firm might have hurt both the encyclopaedia and his friends. Squad members would obviously have defended him, but he knew some of us would have had mixed feelings about it. Myself and several others find detailed articles about sex rather icky , and arent so inclusionist about that sort of thing as we are about others. Benji selflessly abandoned his well admired main account to protect the ARS. Resorting to socking allowed him to continue his work on topics that interest him. Not saying I approve of this, but do respect his good intentions. This is partly speculation, as have had no off wiki contact with Benji to confirm his thinking. But it does seem true to Benjis noble and self sacrificing nature. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This has to be one of the single most interesting comments I have ever read here, and perhaps one of the saddest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Interesting" is not the word I'd use; "disturbing" is more like it. I never had any negative interactions with Benjiboi (although we disagreed on editing the single article in which we had a significant overlap), but Benji's socking, CoI issues, and paid editing (revealed after the fact) leave me wondering why Feyd is figuratively canonizing him. Horologium (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

*I will close this in an hour or so as it will have been 24 hours since this was opened and the consensus seems overwhelming at this point. I'm not sure much purpose is served by keeping it poen much longer.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why not wait and give him a chance to respond? He wasn't using the accounts to vote stack or harass anyone. Did he log on from different computers and do a new account since he forgot his password, or something? We need to let him speak in his defense. Dream Focus 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  OK, in the interests of doing this right I'll hold off closing for at least another 24 hours. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Okip already responded yesterday, someone posted his e-mailed response on his behalf; Okip feigned innocence and tried to throw JClemens under the bus. Just close this farce now, please...even some fellow ARS'ers want him gone, with the the only opposition coming from a handful of irredeemable True Believers. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've read over this, and I don't see the evidence supporting indef. Did the user vote in an MFD with more than one account? Overlaps with user:Calendar are pretty stale, as that account has not edited since 2009. Most of the "wikistalker" report linked above shows ties between Okip and Ikip (apparently common knowledge to everyone involved). Excluding those, there appears to be very little overlap. Scentura was brought up as an example, but there the first edits from Calendar2 follow the last edits from Calendar, and that doesn't look like any intention to deceive. So what exactly is the evidence? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. We have evidence that sockpuppets were used recently in violation of the sockpuppetry policy (to avoid scrutiny and to comment in deletion discussions). Our prohibitions on sockpuppetry are a good deal more general than using multiple accounts in the same discussion. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but the burden here should be on Okip to demonstrate that this behaviour will not recur. Hut 8.5 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What evidence specifically are you referring to? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't quite understand your confusion. This is an example of Spoildead editing project space. Here's one for Calendar2. Both Dragdrag and Calendar2 have been editing High Heel Drag Queen Race. Combined with the checkuser results (which, admittedly, we have to accept on good faith), what do you need before you will accept that he has violated WP:ILLEGIT?—Kww(talk) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
      • How is that disruptive? Sock accounts routinely edit in project space and nothing is done, so even if that violated the letter of WP:ILLEGIT, it's not significant. And simply editing the same article has, historically, not been an issue either. So what is the issue? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Our histories are different. I block any undeclared alternate accounts I detect editing an AFD, or using the same account in alternation to edit the same article. When I know the sockmaster, I block it. If there was a problem with it happening repetitively, I would certainly issue an indef as a result. Undeclared alternate accounts aren't allowed to edit project space. Letter of the law, you aren't allowed to edit project space, unless Gimmetrow has finally claimed you as an alternate.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Too be clear, that wasn't intended as any kind of threat: I'm well aware that Gimmetrow and Gimmetoo are the same editor. It's widespread knowledge, unconcealed by Gimmetoo, and confirmed by checkuser. For some reason, it's a point of principle with the editor that Gimmetrow cannot be forced to claim the account. That annoys me, but I'm not about to do anything about it.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
            • You are, as typical, quite wrong in your analysis. Nor did you answer the question on the point relevant to this discussion. I remind you of WP:NPA. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
              • I would appreciate hearing what was wrong with my analysis, and I'll answer your question explicitly: editing project space with a sock has long been determined to be, prima facie, an effort to avoid scrutiny. Using multiple undisclosed accounts in parallel to edit project space, including deletion discussions of material that the main account is inextricably associated with, is certainly an effort to avoid scrutiny. Making edits while not allowing other editors to consider them in context is considered by most to be disruptive. As for my other comments, I regretted them after saving. That's why I followed up to point out that I wasn't about to take any action about them. I don't think anything I've said approaches a violation of WP:CIV or WP:NPA, though.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
                • The "main" account has one edit in the last 8 months. I'm more than willing to hear the evidence of disruption, but you keep pointing to a minor infraction that is regularly ignored and to my recollection almost never enforced. What's the disruption proportionate to an indef? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
                  • I don't see his infraction as minor or capable of being ignored, for one. It's not the alternation, it's the cloaking. He changed accounts in order to argue for positions that people would have interpreted differently if they knew they were coming from Okip, and didn't perform a clean start, as he did not abandon old behaviours or areas when doing so. That's not a technicality. You are right in the sense that if he was a valuable editor there might be some support for him, but his participation in the ARS as a battle organization (as opposed to the productive wikiproject it was in the past and could be again in the future) makes many of us view him as a source of chronic disruption, even if his edits to article space sometimes have value.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
                    • You can talk about how dangerous speeding is, but it's still speeding; even if repeated it doesn't merit the death penalty. But thanks for your honesty in stating that it's "his participation" that really matters. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
                      • Don't get me wrong: for me, socking is a bright line rule, and I would be in favor of an permanent site ban no matter how wonderful his contributions were. I simply note that other people are more tolerant of it than I am.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support And I was one who supported mentoring rather than a block in the past. Okip is exceedingly aware about socking - I suggest admins examine his deleted userpages (under Inclusionist and Travb, IIRC) dealing with such. As for the attack on Jclemens - it appears a good reason to support his election, I would think. Collect (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Beeblebrox solution: indef, consider revisiting not before 6 months. KillerChihuahua 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. It looks to me like Okip was doing a WP:CLEANSTART until he was baited by the WP:TAGTEAM deletion attack on ARS. He realized that he took the bait and confessed. That should be worth something. CallawayRox (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that such a tag team exists, and how they baited him. It looks to me more like the community gave him lots and lots of rope, and he hung himself pbp 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's rich. "they" TFD and MFD of critical ARS pages and conspiring between you and IRWolfie. CallawayRox (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

He didn't get blocked because we started TfDs and MfDs; and there's no need to go down that road. You've been repudiated once about it recently. The reason he was suspected of sockpuppetry is the way he notified people about those, not that those existed in the first place. If he'd just said "Keep" and put his head down and soldiered (or obviously if he didn't participate at all), we wouldn't be having this discussion. To say "it's mine and Wolfie's fault that this guy got blocked" is ridiculous. We didn't tell him to get a new acct., and we didn't tell him how to react to our actions. This is no fault but his own pbp 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of them are easy keeps and completely unnecessary. Spoildead didn't comment at either one until the MFD started and provoked him past the breaking point. CallawayRox (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply here. He was editing in the exact same areas as before. And if a TfD and an MfD that you yourself characterize as easy keeps are enough to push him past the breaking point, perhaps he doesn't have the temperament for editing here. AniMate 21:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support the Beeblebrox solution, as per Breeblebrox and Killer Chihuahua. Horologium (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've just gone over this again and it seems about the same as before. Only other hard line ARS users are not in favor of a block. I know you all are disappointed that this is happening but if the ARS is to be respected at all it must be more critical of itself than of others. A formerly prominent member (characterized by some as a leader) has been caught red handed using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny. the rest of the community is telling you this on not ok. This is not the time to close ranks and defend Okip no matter what, this is the time to be honest, something that has been sadly lacking in the ARS "leadership" of the past, and admit that no matter who did this it was wrong. Imagine if you will that it was one of the "deletionists" that had been caught doing this from the opposite direction. Would you not all be here advocating a block? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As an ARS supporter, Beeblebrox is right. Okip did wrong. Let's just hope he will understand that, so that he'll be back, and let this be a lesson for everyone else. --Cyclopia^talk 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block of longer than two weeks.Coren had it right when he proposed this. When someone suggests a long block for an editor they strongly disagree with, I look at it a little skeptically, especially when they call the attempts of the other editor to defend their views "disruption." DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef / standard offer after 6 months - Despite my inclusionist tendencies, I was unsure about what to do about this until I took a look at Okip/Ikip's block log, which is very extensive. Given that, indef + standard offer seems very fair to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A question about all these e-mails about Okip socking

Resolved

 – Looks to me like one way or another, this was all orchestrated by Okip himself, and there isn't any real reason to suspect an improper leak of any kind—Kww(talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone clarify the timeline here? As I read it, someone figured out Okip was socking, and mailed a functionary list about it. Okip e-mailed a separate group of people shortly afterwards. If that's true, it would seem reasonable to conclude that someone on the functionary list contacted Okip, which sounds like a real problem. If it's not true, could someone that has access to timestamp data correct me?—Kww(talk) 01:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it more likely that Okip realized he was about to get caught as he was not exactly being subtle in his approach to deletion discussions and his comments there do not look like the comments of a brand new user. However I'm afraid I already deleted those emails from my inbox as I do a almost daily basis so I can't verify the timeline. Since Okip seems like he wants to take others down in flames with him maybe he could clarify by sending out some more trash talking emails... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I got an email (presumably) the same time as NYB and JClemens a day or two ago. I suggested fessing up, but discussion had already come pretty quickly to the conclusion above. sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So this was after the original suspicion had been mailed to the functionary list? That's what I'm seeking clarification on. Beeblebrox, I'm sympathetic to the the suspicion that someone is being set up, but I'd still like to understand the timing.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

When considering the Functionary List Email/Confession Email timeline, also consider that at 20:52, 4 December 2012, I asked Spoildead in the MfD discussion if they had ever edited under another username. Monty₈₄₅ 02:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Checking my mail logs, the self-declaratory email arrived about an hour before the first investigation email, but I read them both at the same time. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I started the initial thread on funct-en at 511 PM EST (2011 UTC) on 4 December. I had seen the MFD, ran a checkuser because an account was a fairly obvious sockpuppet, and for various reasons, I wanted at least one more CU to verify my conclusions were correct before acting. I knew nothing about e-mails from Okip to other arbitrators before reading this noticeboard, and did not receive one myself (or any e-mail from anyone on this matter other than the functionaries thread.) Courcelles 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This matches my functionaries-l records as well. I posted to that thread shortly after Courcelles's initial email, seconding the possibility of socking, since at that point I'd spent much of the day squinting at the MfD, the TfD, and various user contributions trying to figure out what was going on. This thread (here on AN, today) was the first I heard of anyone having been contacted by Okip about socking, confessions, etc. I tend to agree with Beeblebrox that, independent of the functionaries-l investigation, Okip probably realized that he'd made a bit of a show of himself in the TfD and MfD (my warning to Spoildead for personal attacks, for example, came at 19:28 UTC on 12/4) and that he would probably be called on his behavior as a result. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my email shows that the first reply to Courcelles' initial email was Jclemens noting that he'd gotten a tip about Okip socking, but didn't have time to look into it just then. This does line up with his comment above that he read the emails at the same time. His email did not indicate that the email was from Okip himself, and that was the last email from Jclemens on the thread. Beyond that, there were no other indications that Okip had contacted anyone. I'd actually assumed that someone else (not a functionary) had also gotten suspicious and decided to email Jclemens privately... usually sockpuppeteers don't own up when they've been at it for that long. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that had to do with my misunderstanding the email on a cursory first read. It wasn't until later that I reread it on my laptop (vs my initial skim on my phone) and understood that it was actually Ikip himself asking for advice, rather than another editor asking for advice on how to best address a problem of socking. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• This may help clear some more of the muddiness here, Kww: Dream Focus is of course repeatedly substituting Calendar (talk · contribs) for Calendar2 (talk · contribs) even though it is the latter that is listed right at the start of this section. And Ikip's "22:02, 12 April 2010" is fairly obviously a confusion of 2012-12-04 with 2012-04-12 caused by ambiguous culture-specific date formatting combined with a typing error. It would seem a fairly good guess, from the above, that 2012-12-04 22:02 is the date on either the abovementioned reply to Courcelles or a reply to Ikip's confession. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Oh hey, my mistake. Devil's Advocate mentioned Calendar, and that's the name I searched for after checking another one, just copy and pasted it. Calendar2 [83] I see did have some post in October and November, that the same time other socks existed. Did any of them work together on anything? This is odd an editor who once had so many edits every day continuously for so long, would just made so relatively few with a few socks. If he was switching back and forth between socks, then that's a totally different situation. Are we certain it was him? Does more than one person edit from his household? Dream Focus 09:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop grasping at straws and read what is above. Checkuser confirmed it and he admitted it in an email anyway. Yes, we are certain it was him. Yes, they were used to avoid scrutiny. Yes, he knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. I agree it is odd, I don't understand it myself but it was bad-faith socking, there is no doubt about that at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-admin closure of AfD reversal

Resolved

 – NAC has been reversed. AniMate 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Darkness Shines closed the AfD as an "obvious keep". User:FreeRangeFrog objected and reversed. I restored the closure per WP:NACD, interpreting it to mean that only an admin can reopen the discussion closed by a non-admin (or the non-admin could reopen as well). Also, as a practical matter, FreeRangeFrog didn't fix any of the collateral issues associated with DS's closure (the article itself and the article talk page). I bring it here without expressing any opinion on the merits of the non-admin closure. My vague memory is that if an editor objects to a non-admin closure, they should first address it with the non-admin, but I can't remember where I read that (sigh). FreeRangeFrog did post a message to DS's talk page, but I don't believe they waited for a response, and, too boot, they labeled the closure as vandalism. I'll notify the two editors after I post this.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't label the closure as vandalism, that would be a vandalism rollback. My comment in the revision change is there for anyone to see, and this is what I posted in that editor's talk page: Non-admin closures of AFDs like these because you think the outcome is "obvious" can be considered vandalism as far as I am concerned. I stand by that. As per WP:NACD, I didn't consider my action to be re-opening the AFD, but rather undoing what was a patently disruptive and arbitrary non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that Darkness Shines should have been the one to close this. He seems to do a fair amount of editing in regards to Middle East politics and has recently edited Israeli settler violence. He may not have a vested interest in the article, but he does in the topic. Besides, contentious articles like this one should probably be closed by admins. AniMate 00:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• As stated, my reversal of FRF's edit wasn't based on the merits. I don't know about DS's edits, but if I were a non-admin, I wouldn't have closed this AfD. BTW, I have absolutely no objection to an admin reopening the AfD or DS doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• The test for an NAC is if anyone could raise any sort of reasonable objection to it. Seems like this close failed the test. I am not aware of a requirement that only an admin can overturn an non-admin close. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that your position reflects consensus from the discussions that have occurred regarding NACs, particularly the RFCs, and while the question of deference to NACs is murky, I think the general consensus is that they be afforded more deference then that. I'm not looking to re-open the general discussion here, but don't want to leave your position undisputed, lest it be assumed to reflect consensus. Monty₈₄₅ 01:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I could have phrased it more clearly. It is my understanding that NACs of deletion discussions should only be made in cases that any reasonable editor would find to be exceedingly obvious. Since it was apparently not as obvious as DS thought in this particular case it was probably not a good candidate for a NAC. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The actual guideline language is pretty vague: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. The NAC essay is stricter and more in line with your position. Certainly the close at issue here can be reasonably seen as breaking the guideline. Monty₈₄₅ 02:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I note the Bbb23 undid the close reversal, and I disagree with that. This was obviously a bad NAC, but now leaves me in the position that reverting the NAC again (as an admin, which no one argues is a problem) feels like edit-warring and even close to wheel-warring. Bbb23, please redo the close or give the rest of us permission to do so. We shouldn't leave Darkness Shines's close in place.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the comments here, I've reopened the AfD and undone the edits to the article and talk page so they are consistent with the article being discusssed for deletion. If I left anything out, please correct it. I have zero problem with the consensus that the AfD should not have been closed. My objections were procedural. If we are going to permit NACs (not something I'm fond of in the first instance) and the undoing of NACs, the undoings should at least be done by someone who is experienced enough to know how to undo everything, not just the closure itself. I also think that FRF should have waited for a response from DS or at least approached an admin about the issue rather than doing it themselves. It wouldn't have been damaging to the project for the discussion to remain closed for a short time (as it did anyway because of me). Finally, I think allowing anyone who objects to a NAC to simply revert it because they "object" invites chaos.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think you've been incredibly reasonable here, and we can close this. I should note that Nableezy has opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Darkness_Shines. AniMate 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Even if this were an admin closure I would see it as a serious problem. That it was done by a non-admin who has recently been in heated disputes regarding this topic area just magnifies the severity of the action. I understand the reasoning Bbb applied given the policy, but it seems Frog's action was a classic WP:IAR situation. We should gear this towards discussion of DS's action and away from legalistic argumentation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Lesson learned - I will bring such things to the attention of an admin instead of acting arbitrarily. I apologize for the disruption. Two things: First, my objection was valid, I think, given a non-admin closure of a contested AFD where consensus has not clearly been reached. Such an action is arbitrary at best, and given the closer's topical interests, I think a clear case of COI. If I ever feel the need to object to an admin closing an AFD then I am aware of the established avenues for that. I would never simply revert a proper closure. And second, quite frankly given the above I did not think I had the burden of waiting for User:Darkness Shines's comments as to why he closed the AFD, since the end result would have been no different. I stand by my opinion that this was a case of borderline vandalism. §FreeRangeFrog 01:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The NAC was inappropriate but with good intentions. That isn't the same as vandalism. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. I'm dancing around the strict definition of vandalism. Perhaps "consciously did something disruptive that he knew he shouldn't do" is better. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Back log at Requests for page protection

Could we get a few admins to look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as we have a bit of a back log (20 open requests).Moxy (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Now 30 open requests. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It was up to 36 requests when I had to leave for the gym, but now it's back down to a handful. Thanks to all who helped clear the backlog. -- Dianna (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy moved twice

Not wanting to go into a move war, I'm posting this here to gain some attention. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has moved Wikipedia:Image use policy to Wikipedia:Image use suggestions, removed the policy tag from the page and revoved some key text. I've restored the page once, but he simply repeated his actions, both with the rationale "This policy has never been approved by the commmunity as policy". — Edokter (talk) — 12:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from digging in the page history, it was first marked as policy here; the odd link to Wikipedia:Miniseries of Wikicivics was retargeted to Wikipedia:Policy Library in the next edit, and it's seemingly been consistently marked as a policy since then. Something that's been treated as policy for two-thirds of our history shouldn't be dethroned now; long usage has made it what it is. Think of this page's policy status like the sainthood status of mythical or semi-mythical figures like Saint George — they're called saints in a Catholic context because that's what they've been popularly called for many centuries, and likewise this should be considered policy because that's how it's been used for most of our history. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Those were my thoughts as well. I'll restore the page once again and move-protect it. — Edokter (talk) — 12:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

BMK's move was certainly not the best way to resolve this, but I've long been saying that our collection of image-related guideline and policy pages is badly in need of cleanup. We have a "policy" page that contains lots of stuff that has nothing to do with policy; we have a "MOS" page that contains lots of stuff that has nothing to do with style; we have "help" and "tutorial" pages scattered all over the place; it's all a mess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The move was clearly not uncontroversial (i.e. controversial!) and so BMK should not have moved it without prior discussion and wider consensus; he certainly should not have moved it a second time - POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The image issue is conflicted with the fact we have non-free policy that overlaps with it, and we can't talk about images (Free and nonfree) without also highlighting NFC policy too. Cleanup is definitely possible but the page moving and demotion without discussion is inexcusable. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tangentially, can someone please tidy up the mess caused by someone moving (and then re-moving) the page Wikipedia talk:Changing username? Thank you, Victor Yus (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Edokter (talk) — 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

While I think that a good case can be made for my initial move as a bold edit and justifiable on that basis, I agree that my second move was not justified, and I should not have done it. I regret that action, and apologize for making it.

I understand that there is a discussion about image use policy on VPP, so I'll be checking into that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Tylman and the case of the uncloseable RFC

Hi. I'm referring this up the ladder, since Poeticbent seems to want it to come here (and to be honest, I'd welcome that. It needs sorting). At Talk:Richard Tylman some time back, an RFC was run to deterime whether data from Genealogy websites could be used as a source - it was requested to be closed, having had no activity since October 12, and Chris Gualtieri closed it, with it having no consensus, thus defaulting to the status quo, of "no". Poeticbent reverted this close to the RFC on 3 December.

Now I've looked back over Richard Tylman, and indeed, Chris is uninvolved with the article itself, openly admitting that "I (Chris) don't know two things about the subject and I don't personally care about the subject." He was completing a procedural close, for which he doesn't need to be an admin. Poeticbent then decides to revert his close of the Richard Tylman RFC a second time, this time with a threat in the edit summary. This occurred on 4 December.

This is where I waded into the battle - and I stress I wasn't canvassed to do this. I've had the Richard Tylman article and Talk on my watchlist for a while now, pre-RFC opening. How it got there, I have no idea, I don't remember editing it, still I digress. I reverted Poeticbent's undoing of the closure, and gave him a very clear, very blunt (read: bordering on incivil), untemplated warning on his talk page not to revert it again or he'd wind up here. Poetic has now replied at his talk page, to both myself and Chris, stating that he intends to "get more answers" here. So here we are :) All parties involved have been notified. Fish^Barking? 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The close by CG was fine. The "listen up" in bold stuff on Poeticbent's talk page placed by BarkingFish -- not helpful. (Rest of the message was okay). NE Ent 12:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The close by CG should've been "No consensus" as no one but TFD supported exclusion and yet CG closed in TFD's favor. The other two editors make decent points. But the biggest knife in the CG's close cake is that the larger consensus at the RS noticeboard was also non-consensus leaning toward careful use of Ancestry.com as a source. So I'd say that CG's close was actually poor. However, Poeticbent's behavior certainly isn't good; especially since he was involved in the other discussion. The right thing to have done would have been to discuss it with an administrator or bring it here rather than get into a fit with other editors and reverting the close.--v/r - TP 14:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that CG was a neutral uninvolved editor and Poeticbent would be well advised to not accuse others of bias simply because they didn't agree with his bias.--v/r - TP 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So you say throw out policy and convention on the number of votes cast in the RFC? Also, the actual discussion itself about Ancestry.com being a reliable source is pretty straight forward. See here. [84] Many well founded opinions and comments are already present for that, and I cannot simply disregard what seems to be a strong argument against Ancestry.com's teaser hints as being a valid and reliable source. As I mentioned in the RFC close, I would have taken them as primary or secondary sources provided they were verifiable, but the links used were not even viewed by Poeticbent himself, and much of the postings are a synthesis and original research because of it. Furthermore, as they were being used as external links and WP:ELNO is pretty clear about not having paywall and minimal use.

Also, please remember that these links were not solely Richard Tylman. They included links to "William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614), with children" and "Richard Tylman IV (1569–1614). Born to Nycholas Tylman III and Jane Benson." Furthermore, the links in this family tree assembled by some amateur are really reliable? [85] Even other 'reliable sources' used in the article are questionable such as this one. [86] 'Freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com'? Seriously? This is no different then taking some random angelfire, yahoo or other website and posting it up as proof. Its like the one line fragment used from a Lulu.com (a POD print book) as a reliable source in this article? [87] So, I'd seriously consider what is really reliable and what stands out as a massive synthesis of material. We are already aware that there are many Richard Tylmans and that others lived in the same area, and there is at least 5 if the assembled geneology is to be right. Though this is coming from a website that tries to push that almost everyone is related to kings and queens of olde. True geneology research takes time and even people at Ancestry.com know that the trees of others can be entirely garbage. Only the documents themselves are useful, not the assembled product of amateurs seeking to glorify their pasts. I would assert that Poeticbent does not even have access to the pages upon which he linked, as the dates for the events and such would be surely included, but nothing more then what the 'free' look is taken. As far as I was concerned, they do not meet the standards for WP:RS and WP:V, let alone WP:EL under WP:ELNO as they were. So yes, even though the number of !votes were leaning away, the simple fact that the sources themselves were garbage in full view of policy means I could not simply go against a community concensus of what is reliable (even the side discussion at RSN proved as much) and had really no other choice then to act in accordance to policy. Poeticbent began disrupting and making personal attacks on me immediately thereafter. There was no activity in that RFC since Oct 15th, after I close I am called to be non-neutral, partisan, a bully, and commiting 'fakery' by mere closing of the RFC.

The real disconnect, even amongst the supporter of the previous link Clemrutter is as follows, "...I can happily agree that two commercial websites are not valid sources. I fail to understand how they shouldn't be cited for external links- so the dear reader can share the external links he will need to use if he wishes to do OR." This kind of mindset underscores my decision, Clemrutter agrees that they are not valid sources yet wishes to include them as external links for OR. If they aren't valid sources, they shouldn't be used, even if you must argue it, ELNO covers it then. If you cannot count the source as reliable and verifiable, don't stick it under 'external links', it shouldn't be on the page. So here we go round the circle again. I decided the RFC on policy. Clemrutter's comments seem fair. And if you really want to be super-precise on the RFC the count was 3 to use, 1 to not use, 1 comment. One of the uses were from a blocked sockpuppet (and didn't add an argument anyways) and the other use was include because AGF that the geneology info is correct rather then see if it is reliable or not. Making the whole RFC in reality, 1 to use and 1 not to use. TFD's arguments and the discussion at RSN was really the important matter as it as on policy, as all good decisions are made. I do not think I was 'poor' in judgement for deciding it that way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All of that makes a great comment in an RFC, not a close. Taking a single editors comments and closing it as the "consensus of an RFC" is a joke. If anything, you should've closed it as "No one seems to care" or just simply "no consensus."--v/r - TP 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I listen on policy instead of popularity. You take a blocked sockpuppet's 'me too' as a vote? You take someone who admits the sources aren't reliable as a pro use? You take a comment by Clemrutter who just after the close agrees the sources aren't valid yet think I closed wrong? Seriously? If you oppose and state, 'the sources aren't valid', you really are saying that they are not valid, and Wikipedia deals in reliable sources. So Clemrutter doesn't understand External Links, but he knows what a reliable source is. 2 to TFD as I see it. The other not vote from GeorgeLouis fell into the same boat as 'Let the reader decide if it is reliable or not and I AGF it is correct'. These are not strong arguments. If the sources cannot meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V then we should not use them, not tack them onto external links and try to let it fly in the face of WP:ELNO. The RFC as small as it was, had only one major argument rooted in policy, and that was TFDs. Consensus is fine for certain things, but Wikipedia as a whole is not going to be locally overruled because 2 people with flawed arguments are numerically more then someone who roots arguments in policy, and that those said sources do not meet community standards. Unless I am sorely mistaken, rather then argue about the number of votes, how about someone argue on a matter of policy and how those sources are okay in light of it. Forget it being about external links, they won't even pass RS or V, if they do, I'd add them as sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed on the RS noticeboard about how WP:V can apply to Ancestry.com. Where you are mistaken is believing that your interpretation of policy is the only one. That is why we consider consensus in discussions. Other editors have a different idea of how WP:V can be met. As a closer, your job is the summarize those ideas, identify the ones with the strongest policy based rationale, and show how much support that rationale received. You can't stick with your understanding of policies when closing. You have to recognize the community's interpretation before your own. The larger discussion offered solid ideas and took WP:V into consideration. So the close wasn't done well. I would've said "No consensus" which would've resulted in the same thing. Instead, we essentially have a supervote.--v/r - TP 16:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the close is one thing, but calling a good faith effort "a joke" is uncalled for. My first thought when reviewing was there wasn't enough discussion on the article talk page, but when I followed the link to RSN my read of the discussion was similar to CGs. NE Ent 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The effort isn't a joke, the "RFC" is. I read the RSN thread completely different than you then. My takeaway from it was that WP:V could be met given certain conditions on Ancestry.com.--v/r - TP 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I understand the different. Ancestry.com has some good and rare records that can be used. As I stated and have been stating, I'd take a primary document of worth. As so is the discussion at RSN. The problem is that no documents have been provided and that even Poeticbent does not have access to said primary documents (its the free content only) and the tree as was in the external links was not even about the subject alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see RFC closure as a deterministic process -- it's a messy process. Lacking evidence CG was either involved or grossly ignored the discussion, closing it as they did seems reasonable to me. I'd have said the same thing had TP closed it as no consensus. The whole point of RFC should be to bring closure to a discussion; I think it counterproductive to Wikipedia overall to allow reopening of RFCs by parties disagreeing with an outcome unless there's compelling evidence the closer made a gross error. NE Ent 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, I fully support CG in this thread. It was certainly within discretion. It's just not how I'd have closed it. As I said earlier, the result is the same and I tend to get tied up in principals, but I agree CG was uninvolved and perfectly capable of the closure and Poeticbent doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on here.--v/r - TP 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was in the process of opening this, when User:BarkingFish beat me to it, so 'm skipping the intro. Informing other editors about ANI is not a threat, and not an insult contrary to what BarkingFish said on my talk page... We have a prolific user here, ChrisGualtieri, a rollbacker with long edit history, who forgot that he's not an administrator (and for a good reason) dishing out controversial judgements with no regard for the contributions of other experienced Wikipedians. His personal views are so entrenched that he doesn't seem to realize that what he dishes out from his own little corner of RFC doesn't smell good. Comfort breeds contempt apparently, and his ego-self is compelled to pretend to the throne. Poeticbent talk 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're currently at the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. You've thrown out a ton of insults against ChrisG without at all addressing the close or substantiating your accusations. What makes Chris biased? What makes him egotistical? As far as I can see, Chris is completely neutral and uninvolved and although I disagree with his close, it doesn't at all support the remarks you've made about him. Editors have just as much capability of closing RFCs are administrators do. Whomever told you that only administrators closed RFCs was mistaken. You've given no evidence that he has a personal view prior to closing the RFC. You've given no support that his views are entrenched. You've given us nothing but your word that your insults and accusations are the truth. Seriously, welcome to WP:ANI.--v/r - TP 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (Quote): "Chris, I will report you to ANI for misuse of process tools, partisan editing, revert warring, fakery and general bullying." Now tell me - does that look like Poetic is "informing" the user about AN/I, or threatening to report him? To me personally, it looks like a direct threat to report Chris for a load of stuff Poetic can't actually substantiate. Partisan editing? Fakery? General Bullying? What the hell... Step up to the plate and back up your claims, if you can. Fish^Barking? 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Policy states it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. NE Ent 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The attacks come against me from the moment I closed, I even mentioned this before. Its a wonderful example of 'i didn't hear that'. I never edited the page before closing the RFC, the view history is easy enough to check. He called me horrible things for simple closing in disagreement, based on policy nonetheless. Poeticbent created the article and has done a lot of the work, but is suffering from WP:OWN and is lashing out, even calling my close of the RFC as an XFD. I don't want to delete the article, never did. I just don't like the response to my close and how not once has an arguement over those sources been made, instead its attack the editor. If those sources pass RS and V, I'd be happy to have them on the page. Though they do not meet the criteria and Poeticbent does not have the primary documents either to back it up. Makes verification nearly impossible, and the marriage one is only one line in a book as are some of the other sources in the article. And those too have flaws, yet I didn't remove those. I was solely here for the RFC close as per the request on the page.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This would probably be more easily solved by reopening the content issue and taking it to RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to WP:ELN as they wanted it as an external link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has no dog in this hunt: it's very clear from the many WP:RS/N inquiries on ancestry.com that there's a wide consensus that its material is often unreliable and that most of the reliable material would tend to be considered primary sources. If the RFC had been conducted at RS/N it surely would have attracted a lot more negative responses. Moreover, a quick read over the article leaves me quite uneasy; it feels very much like a piece of original research that is having to put together a lot of material without benefit of secondary sources having done the work first. Personally, I think a procedural close sending to the issue to the correct noticeboard would have been an appropriate response, but I don't think CG's closure was out of line. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It went to the ELN right after I closed it by TFD. TFD was in favor of removal. [88] It should be RSN as it was before. Though I closed the way I did was because it had already been to RSN. As it was here [89]. So I closed the way I did because it I took both arguments from the pages into consideration (as the majority of activity occurred at RSN anyways). If you are implying that I should have closed by sending it back to RSN, then its surprising to me. Since I thought the matter was already handled adequately there. It bounced forums and is doing so again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that you should have done differently, only that you could have chosen to do so, with the likely outcome of that being essentially the same as your closing result. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This article was sent to AfD five times not because of Tudors... and certainly not because of Ancestry.com website. The subject was targeted by WP:EEML, one of the biggest arbitration cases in Arb history originating from Eastern Europe. When ChrisGualtieri approached this article he saw its history and instead of stepping back and acknowledging the lack of consensus he chose to take one side against the other. What's worse, he also performed unilateral revert in main space. No editor can call himself uninvolved anymore, as soon as he begins to perform unilateral reverts in support of one side in a bitter and long-standing conflict. User:The Four Deuces is an active participant in Eastern European conflicts regarding communism and he knows a lot more than he cares to admit. His two AfDs were no accident. Some of the best Wikipedians were prohibited from casting a vote by ArbCom. For him, the article subject does not matter as much as the fact that it is named Richard Tylman. Read the opening line of his second AfD. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment - the "Richard Tylman issue" has been going on for quite some time and is far more complicated than some of this thread suggests. Having had a very good, long look at the whole history during the last AFD for Richard Tylman, I posted this note which gives some background. Poeticbent had tried to explain some of the background (as he has here) but without some of the details that might be construed as a conflict of interest on his part, given his openly declared conflict of interest with the previous article of the same name. Was it smart to create a new article about a different person with the same name as the subject of a very controversial article with which he had a direct conflict of interest? No, probably not "smart", but also not prohibited. There will naturally be more "eyes" on the new article given the history of the old one but it's probably not helpful to describe that extra scrutiny as "general bullying". Poetic might feel like he is being watched / scrutinised / hounded but transferring that anger onto an uninvolved editor won't help the situation, regardless of the actions of that editor. That said, nor is it particularly helpful to consider the history of an article (having "stumbled across" it) and then non-admin close a discussion based on an opinion. It doesn't help that the editor in question cited an WP:RSN discussion (with basically the same content) started by the same OP that had not yet been closed with any form of consensus that had been started only days earlier. I'm not sure why the OP felt there was a need for an RSN and a talk page RFC but citing one unclosed discussion to NAC another probably wasn't a great idea. In reality, WP:RSN is probably the best place for such a discussion and NAC'ing the RFC as a "duplicate" while directing editors to RSN would probably have been okay. To be honest, I can't see that there was a great deal of malice here, just a little bit of line over-stepping (all around) that can be quite easily resolved with a re-wording of the closure (noting duplication and directing to RSN rather than citing it) and an agreement to discuss it there with civility. Stalwart111 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and expansion

Some have thought my actions may be a bit much, in light of such strong words, even without evidence behind them, such attacks have already proven somewhat effective. So I'll point out once again, that I had no idea what I was stumbling into, I didn't even care to check the AFD history. After this little fuss started I checked and saw it was about some poet and figured that the article was in no shape or form related. How wrong I was. Stalwart seems to have pieced together what I did not know and it was eye opening. In fact, I was a little bit taken aback as the article probably didn't need to be deleted, COI notwithstanding. I really had no idea of what this drama was about or why my actions are somehow related to this mailing list and Arbcom stuff which has long preceeded my wiki activities by a span of years. When I say neutral and uninvolved, I really meant it in all forms, as I was entering the matter completely ignorant of any history and dealt with the matter purely from the RFC and the RSN noticeboard discussions. A plus or a negative, debate amongst yourself, but I had pure intentions. I decided according the guidelines for closing an RFC and did so with the policy, as policy is a foundation for good decision making, not !votes. Sadly, something with this article and the deception as well as the outlandish attacks against me have stirred a curiousity. While I looked at the sources briefly and specifically dealt with the ones concerning the RFC, the others I AGF and let them be. In light of such attacks, I feel that something was trying to be covered up, trying to scare me away, anyone who could disturb Poetic from this article. With Stalwart's post, I realized this entire thing is under POINTY. The Richard Tylman article is full of original research and synthesis and outright false information tediously crafted to portray a single individual. Simple fact, Richard Tillman was the merchant who in 1580 made 33 voyages during the 6 month recorded in the Port Book. Depending on your views as purposeful malicious action or very poor editing, the problems begin with lines like this, "In 1580 all corn sold by Faversham dealers to the London merchants came from Richard Tylman..." No source backs this. Its also blatently wrong. Even if he was mayor, the connecting stemming from a letter which states as such and a note in the history of Kent in one source but not the best one, states a Richard Tylman was mayor. Problem is that the best source says he was a merchant, nothing is said about him being a merchant AND a mayor. A bit rough to say based a single letter record which isn't a primary document, but an account of a letter rather then the letter itself. One of the sources tied to him is supposively 16 years after his death. The article itself is full of synthesis and original research. Not even Faversham's own web page makes a single mention of Richard Tylman.[90] I'd love to straighten this mess out, but I think something major is going on here and me closing the RFC was truly a blind man's folly as I've wound up in the middle of this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the close. It used the same reasoning recommended for closing AfDs, to evaluate the arguments about the interpretation of policy. This issue however would probably not have gone to ANI except for Poeticbent's defensive attitude toward other editors. I did not participate in the first three AfDs and, except for Poeticbent and myself, no one involved in the current article had any involvement with the previous one. And while some of the editors who voted to delete in previous AfDs were involved in Eastern European articles, many were not, yet Poeticbent impugned their motives. The only editor participating in the first nomination who was involved in Eastern European articles voted to keep. TFD (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is just another petty dispute about nothing. This should never happen. The article in question is really nothing, it may or may not exist - who cares? These databases may or may not be used - either way is fine. Whoever brought this to ANI, do not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is valid to discuss whether the RfC was closed and reopened properly. My thoughts is that involved editors acted mostly in AGF, and that we should reclose the RfC as no consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I did actually revert the unclosing of the RFC by Poetic, Piotrus. If the RFC needs to be reclosed, fair enough - my understanding was that in the event of a no-consensus, closure reverts to the default - whatever it was before, in this case being a no to the decision. Will reclosing it again with a different reason make a blind bit of difference to this? It's still a no, either way. Fish^Barking? 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: returning this to AN/I, wasn't closed, was archived by Miszabot II before discussion was finished. Fish^Barking? 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm no longer amazed that such a massive discussion could have happened in the few hours since the thread was started on the image use policy page...Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• After looking at this, I have the following constructive suggestions:

1. Do not create articles on subjects of marginal notability, and do not object when someone else comes to fix a thing or two in such articles.
2. Do not post an RfC to exclude a couple of links from an article of marginal notability.
3. Do not make a non-administrative closure if there is a contentious dispute.
4. Do not repost on AN something that did not receive much attention on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• • After looking at your "constructive" suggestions, I have one for you:
    1. Do not tell other people what they should and should not do, when you clearly have no interest in the outcome :) - This was reposted on AN not because it didn't receive much attention - as you can clearly see, it did. It was reposted because it was archived without conclusion or a decision. Fish^Barking? 17:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you posted anything here, it means that you are asking other people for advice (and possibly action), and this is exactly what I did. It is in fact very common that threads on ANI are archived automatically without anyone making an official closing. If that happens, it means there is no reason for action. This is a content dispute or something no one wants to be involved in. If that happens, re-posting the matter on the AN is not really helpful, I believe. People usually do not do it, even if they want others be sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Shit. I just realized I posted this entire thread in the wrong goddamned place. Oopsie. Fish^Barking? 01:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(not so) hypothetical scenario

So let us presume there was a user who was blocked here some time ago for a long-term pattern of incompetence as well as another action that was very deceitful and dishonest, although done so poorly that it could also be seen as part of their pattern of incompetence. This user has managed to remain in good standing at Commons, possibly because a language issue that they would not admit to here does not get in their way over there. This user has now established a decent track record over there and has just changed their name. Just after the Commoms name change went through somebody created an account under that new name here. I mean, like within hours, far too soon to chalk it up to coincidence. As of right now this account has no edits at all.

Keep an eye on it and see of it ever does edit, or block preemptively and leave a notice on the blocked users talk page? (with enough digging you may be able to determine who I am referring to, but for the moment I would ask everyone to keep the disc:ussion in the realm of the hypothetical.) Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's possible they are just registering the name so that nobody else tries to edit under that name, but I'm not 100% sure how the whole global editing thing works, so I might just dead wrong. - SudoGhost 21:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'd have no issues with a preemptive block. Seems like the logical conclusion of the "prevention, not punishment" credo.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wouldn't the new account simply be the effect of automatic creation for a unified account, done as soon as the user enters en-wp as a reader (while logged-in at Commons)? Why not simply ask the user on Commons if the new account is him, and just remind him that he is not supposed to be editing with the new name here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One doesn't even need to do that. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• The account creation log tells the world whether an account was explicitly created or is a SUL account that was automatically created because someone logged in just happened to pull up an English Wikipedia page. And in this particular case we can see "was created automatically" right there in the log. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh duh, how did I miss that? That being the case I think just sitting on it is the best option. Thanks everyone for your input. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive User JoseGoGo

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

---

User JoseGoGo (talk · contribs) has spent spent the last couple of days Wiki-hounding me from 2 different IPs on an open proxy. Now that his proxy has been blocked (See SPI for diffs to support the preceding sentence: [91]), he's registered an account and seems intent on edit warring. He is edit-warring at James Dobson [92][93], contrary to consensus in an ongoing Talk discussion[94], and he is also edit-warring at Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States[95][96], where he refuses to justify his edits. Now he is harassing me on my own Talk page. [97] Belchfire-TALK 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In all likelihood it's probably the indeffed SkepticAnonymous.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoever he was in the past, it's quite evident that this brand new account is not a user who is new to Wikipedia. I also see telltale signs that would seem to tie him to another badly behaved IP, but I am informed by the patrolling admin at SPI that they won't do Check User for IPs (which is ridiculous, because a quick look at the User-Agent string would clear this up in a heartbeat). Belchfire-TALK 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The correct place for this is SPI. You brought the two IPs to SPI, but not this editor. File there again showing any relevant behavioural evidence you have for the assertion. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

JoseGoGo is obviously a sock, and based on the behavior, not just of the two IPs but of some unknown experienced editor. I have no idea who or if they are blocked/banned though. Monty₈₄₅ 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have semi'd Belchfire's talk page for four days as an interim measure. -- Dianna (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is the evidence, that's the sort of connection that can be made through SPI with behavioural evidence and with a checkuser (I see that is being done now). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MagicEagle67

Resolved

 – Problem was resolved on the Incidents board. -- Dianna (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I want ti report this users because they keep making changes against consensus regard any article related to Rangers F.C. they are pushing there own point of view and are not providing new evidence or arguments to back there case, nor are they engaging in the talk page like i have asked them to.

They also editing a medation page that is long closed now [98]

Any action against the user is at the admin discretion i dnt want to be involved in the discussions, i will post in the article talk page for other editor familiar with the subject to post and let the user knowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently repeatedly vandalising the History of Rangers [[99]] page and had this to say when warned about it, "That's fine if you get me banned. I will just create my very own page and put the record straight. If you can create and edit a page full of mistruths, myths and hearsays, I am sure someone like me who is reporting facts will do a far better job of accuracy than you."[[100]]BadSynergy (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now move this to icedints due to the user escalating there disruptive behaviourplease closeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of PROD and Non-Admin Closure of AfD

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 admins, could someone please review the use of PROD and non-admin closure of AfD of User:Sue_Rangell. I have reverted her use of PROD due to no concern given nor any edit summary providing anything other than PROD. Additionally, she engaged into a edit war with User:Dream_Focus over the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_O'Brien_(comedian) as she disagreed with their application of the non-admin closure requirements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Dream Focus isn't an administrator. -- KTC (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I realized it after hence my edit and fixed it :) Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I closed the discussion as a snow keep, as it had 8 keeps and no deletes. There is no edit war. Dream Focus simply reverted my closure. If there was an issue, it should have been taken through channels. As for the PRODs, I have been prodding a lot of the Avaya spam that seems to be cropping up everywhere. Mrfrobinson has been protecting those pages and removing the prods, which is his right. I am now taking the issues to AfD as contested prods. Thank you. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will also point out that the PROD issue was discussed on my talk page. I was doing quite a few of them, and simply missed giving explanations on a couple of them. They were done in error, and it is certainly Mrfrobinson's right to remove errant material. I can't say that it won't happen again, for I am a mere human, but I can say that I will certainly be more vigilant in the future when it comes to PRODS (and a lack of life giving coffee) Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Sue Rangell, I am not sure what the connection is to this discussion, but since you brought this up I would like to ask where is the "Avaya spam" that you say "seems to be cropping up everywhere"? The only involvement I have witnessed is your participation and nominations to delete wikipedia articles about products that have been around for several years. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed between Sue Rangell and Dream Focus on his talk page prior to this post [[User_talk:Dream_Focus]. Where Sue Rangell did inform Dream Focus of her objection to their re-opening the issue and went ahead and re-closed it whereas it should have been allowed to remain open for the full period. PROD is not a replacement for RfD and requires clear justification on its use. Omitting any rationale for the use of PROD is justification for its removal from a page. Also we could do with less "emotion" and "he is being a protectionist" here and stick to the actual rules that keep Wikipedia united. Also Monty I did notify Sue Rangell of this discussion on her talk page. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Your right on the prod issue, the AfD close was borderline, but I don't see any attempt at discussion before raising it (the AfD issue) here, finally your required to notify editors when you start a thread about them here. Overall, I think we should hold off on discussion here, and wait to see if the issue(s) can be resolved through normal discussion on Sue Rangell's talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The AfD close is perhaps a bit premature time-wise, but it looks like a speedy keep anyway, so it's hardly controversial. As for the Avaya thing, I suspect Sue omitted the rationale because there's been a drive to delete or redirect most of them since the vast majority of them clearly lack standalone notability and are borderline corporate spam. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep does not apply here IMO, none of the 5 reasons apply. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be a WP:SNOW keep, rather then a Speedy; the line were snow applies is pretty vague and leaves a lot of room for discretion. Monty₈₄₅ 20:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No it doesn't, but WP:SNOW may. Personally, SNOW here may have been a little bit premature, though I wouldn't have reopened it. Having said that, once it was reopened, Sue should not have re-close it. If an editor raise a reasonable objection to a SNOW close, then let it run the full course, or at the very least let someone else close it. Also, if a close is per SNOW, pointing that you are closing under SNOW wouldn't hurt. -- KTC (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a question to anybody. Isn't deletion review the proper way to contest a AfD closure? I am fairly certain that the template says specifically not to edit or revert. That is the only reason I replaced the template. I will also point out that the other party also submitted one of the "Keep" opinions, so the reasoning confounds me. I am not the smartest person in the world, and I do make mistakes, but this really looks like a snow keep to me, and now there are at least two editors who have chosen to simply revert the closure, rather than use the proper deletion review channels. Am I looking at this improperly? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No Deletion review is for deletion review, not improper closing of AfD. If WP:SNOW was the intention here it should have been noted. WHile Wikipedia does allow for non-admin closing of AfD it is not encouraged for this very reason. It takes an extremely experienced editor to make decisions, especially those which involve WP:SNOW and explanation should be provided. The reason I brought this here is two fold. 1) you have been previously warned about not providing concerns for PROD and the misuse of Huggle. 2) The AfD was improperly closed, re-opened and then closed again, this creates an edit war which required an experienced neutral party to be involved. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Your account is only one day old with 11 edits. Yet you seem to know a great deal about Wikipedia. I am very sorry that you disagree with my snow keep. I will certainly be more carefull about marking snow keeps in the future. I was acting in the best interests of Wikipedia in any event, and I think the discussions on the talk pages speak for themselves. In fact, I don't even know why this discussion was brought here. There is certainly no need for arbitration or anything, at least as far as I can tell. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The account Mrfrobinson was registered in October 2011. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My error. First edit was just yesterday. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And have been active under my old (and no longer have the password/email) account for years prior to then User:Onthost. Plus you may not realize this but there are a ton of people out there that might know what is going on and how wikipedia works without actually participating! Your use of "sigh" implies that you are not used to people disagreeing with you. Wikipedia is a consensus, held together by a loose policy framework, maintained by the janitorial staff known as the admins. My point of all this is while you do take initiative, somethings should be left to experienced admins, especially the use of WP:SNOW in early non-admin AfD closings. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the disclosure, and the explanation of how Wikipedia functions. I appreciate your opinion. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would qualify for snow here, too few editors (and mostly those arriving from ARS post: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Daniel_O.27Brien_.28comedian.29 to vote keep). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That and the fact that the use of WP:SNOW is discouraged. I feel like I am ragging on Sue but she has now done two non-admin closures under the guide of WP:SNOW. While I applaud her initiative I think caution should always be used, especially when utilizing seldom used reasons. Another example being Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al-Dalu_family_killing, this was closed after 6 days under WP:SNOW whereas in reality it is a Speedy Keep due to the original nominator stating that he is neutral to it's deletion and the AfD should be closed. Speedy keep specifically distinguished itself from WP:SNOW and should be referenced as such. AfD nominations are not to be taken light hearty. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia:Deletion review includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. If an admin had made the close, then the avenues of appeal would be to the admin to reconsider, and then to DRV. WP:NACD (policy) and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (essay) provide that admins may revert non-admin closures, or they may be taken to WP:DRV. There is no discussion of non-admin reverts one way or the other or what standard an admin should use in deciding to overturn a non-admin close. The ongoing discussion about non deletion closes seems to be favoring a good deal of deference to non-admin closers, though it is still open. Monty₈₄₅ 21:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that if a non-admin exercises, with their best intention, the non-admin closure policy they should be proving a clear rationale and understanding of the policy. When it does not include a rationale or it appears the policy is not being implemented as intended it is borderline vandalism and should be reverted to allow for the correct process to take place. Otherwise what is there to stop everyone from closing the AfD as non admin keep and then requiring a discussion about the discussion. The Speedy Keep clause is meant to accelerate AfD that do not need to be running, but should be exercised with caution and care. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is an opportunity here for feedback to Sue Rangell; she seems to have gotten the message above. What I do not see is a need for admin action. Is there any reason for this discussion to stay open? VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)]

@Mrfrobinson, DRV would have been the appropriate venue after talking to the closer. Snow isn't uncommon (at least in some parts of the Wikipedia universe). Pardon the average user for having a less than ideal impression when you start out with an apparently vast knowledge of Wikipedia that is also not entirely correct. --Nouniquenames 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it an "edit war", I just reverting her one time, and explaining on my talk page she needed to read the rules. Article sent to AFD at 23:12, 4 December 2012‎. Not even two full days go by when at 20:36, 6 December 2012‎ Sue Rangell does a non-admin close. Six minutes later at 20:42, 6 December 2012‎ I reverted her with the edit summary "you can't do that unless everyone agrees or its been 7 days". Two days after that, at 22:05, 8 December 2012‎, she does it again. Five people said keep, I was one of them, but the nominator was still arguing, they not convinced the article should be kept. So it should stay open for 7 days as is normal. Everyone should have the chance to say their bit, and others might join in later on. She post on my talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#Please_do_not_revert_closed_AfD_discussions. Rather condescending I think. I then linked her to where the rules are at. This was clearly not a proper action. Dream Focus 22:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well any time a controversial edit is reversed then reinstated it is essentially an edit war. The reversal of the closing, IMO, was and is the proper action. While Wikipedia is not a bureaucratic place, some aspects of it are governed by policy else Anarchy would ensue. Could someone please close this discussion as my point was made and the outcome, being input on the subject by Admins and impartial third parties, was achieved. 99.227.152.95 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Should have been discussion instead of a simple reinstate, then it wouldn't have needed to be here. It's a keep either way, it seems, just a delay to close. --Nouniquenames 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• There has been enough discussion here already and I'm sure that those concerned have got the message. FWIW, if I see a PROD without a rationale, I look for one, and if I can't find one I remove the PROD with a suitable edit summary explaining why. As far as NAC is concerned, the gudelines are clear, and any closures by non-admins should only be done when when there is a clear consensus and when the non-admin clearly understands what s/he is doing. Any controversy arising from an NAC is a clear indication that something was wrong.

Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Boyko Borisov controversy controversy

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.

---

Feel need to inform someone of the oligarchy, which is being used in the contstruction, or in this case the "deconstruction" of the page of this Bulgarian politician. Important details of the image of this man are being errased in his personal interest; Anti-Neutral behaviour on the part of 79.100.15.251, are serious violations of the solid rules of Wiki. The user statements taht nothing was proven and that it is a "insult against a prime minister", has no bearing and does not change the fact that these accusations are properly sourced and their removal could only be explained by the fact that this user has sympathy for the guy. In case some people haven't noticed "prime minister insults" did not cause anyone to start deleting things from Silvio berlusconi's page. Sex with minors is just as "insulting" as relationships with organised crime. May the Foundation take notice at these actions, as mere vandalism may turn Wikipedia into a political oligarchy blackboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong forum. Consider discussing the issue on the article talk page that hasn't seen a comment for nearly a year. If that fails, take it to WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

ACC flag

Just wanted to put this out there, not really asking for a formal discussion (of course, unless that's what comes of it) "It would be a good thing if Admins considering approving a request for the ACC bit to just get a tool admin's input on the user requesting the flag, since the user should have some kind of track record at ACC". Thanx for what ever this might bring Mlpearc (powwow) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me attempt to reword that: "If you're considering giving someone the accountcreator right, ask a Toolserver administrator's opinion in order to understand the track record of the person who wants to be an accountcreator". Did I understand you rightly, or if not, where did I go wrong? Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Mlpearc means tool admins in regards to the ACC tool. More specifically these users. Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clearer, you both hit the nail on the head, if a user goes to WP:PERM and requests the ACC bit the patrolling Admin(s) look a "on wiki" statuses, while back at ACC the same user might not be ready to handle special requests yet, even after hitting the six requests limit a few times, and a tool Admin would be aware of this and could shed light on the PERM request. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly makes someone a tool admin? Are Bsadowski1, Cobi, Deliriousandlost, etc simply regular administrators who use the account creation tool? Sorry for being dense. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The users on that list may or may not be en-wp admin's. They are Toolserver admins for the request interface, they have management functions such as accepting new users, suspending current users, they are able to black requesting IP's and/or email addy's of known socks, vandals, and so forth. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It would probably help if you didn't call them "Toolserver admins" and used the phrase "ACC tool admins". Or something that doesn't mean the same as "toolserver roots". Legoktm (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't call them toolserver admin's, I was just clarifying that they, I am not an en-wp admin. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How would getting the accountcreator flag let them handle special requests? I thought it only removed the rate-limit on how many requests they could handle. Legoktm (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So I assume this isn't coming out of nowhere. Are there admins, otherwise uninvolved with ACC, granting this user right without properly assessing an account creators actual record?? If so, a) this is a problem, and b) there should probably be some sort of notice to administrators at the RfC page to not do this. Swarm ^X 06:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ꆈꌠ꒿

I want to have the page ꆈꌠ꒿ redirect to Nuosu language (it's the native name for the language), but it is blocked by a blacklist. Can an admin help? 24.34.53.2 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The third character, "YI RADICAL HXOP", is in the Unicode "Symbol, Other" category, which is blacklisted. Is this the correct one to use or should it be ꆈꌠꉙ (which looks identical, but has a "YI SYLLABLE HXOP" at the end)? Peter James (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know the difference... I checked the Nuosu language article saw that the symbols were identical to those indicated here by the anon and created the redirect. If I used the wrong symbol, any admin can speedy and create the right redirect. Or, alternatively, ꆈꌠꉙ can be created as well: redirects are cheap, after all... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the second one's been created. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Temporary approval of checkuser status

So that they may complete their duties as scrutineers of the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, the stewards User:Pundit, User:Teles, User:Quentinv57, and User:Mardetanha are authorized to grant themselves checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. They are authorized to use these rights solely for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as scrutineers. They may retain these rights until the election results are posted and verified; at that time the checkuser rights should be relinquished.

• Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies
• Supporting after posting:
• Abstaining: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad
• Not voting at time of posting: Casliber, PhilKnight, SilkTork, SirFozzie
• Inactive for this motion: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

Backlog at CAT:EP

There's a backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests that could do with the attention of some willing admins. I've just done a bunch, but there are still 17 requests pending. While some of them require knowledge of template coding or JavaScript to answer, quite a few are updates to articles or trivial template fixes that anyone can do. If you're not sure how to answer requests, take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests or ask me if you have any questions. And if you help out, I'll buy you a virtual beer. (Or maybe a real beer if I happen to meet you at Wikimania next year. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What an outfit

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239 § Alan Liefting, categories in userspace, and bite; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240 § Topic ban for Alan Liefting; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241 § Request to lift a topic ban; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242 § Request to lift a topic ban; User:Alan Liefting/Essays/On categorisation; and User:Alan Liefting/Essays/Stub categories are project categories

So you lot have blocked me from doing category related edits. Have a look at this piss poor outcome: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Bibliographies by subject. FFS... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• The corps has. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a military expression. Short for "The corps has gone to shit." Usually used when talking about the good ol' days. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Alan, are you just going to keep starting threads here hoping that at some point some gullible admin will decide we can't possibly manage our categories without your personal input? FYI that is the least likely outcome. As I said in the last thread where we tried to get you to stop pissing and moaning about your topic ban, your WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Let it go, you are only making the day when the topic ban is lifted move farther away with this persistent complaining about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• That was a perfectly valid procedural close and not even relevant to AN. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • While starting a Cfd w/o adding the notification templates to the relevant categories is a spectacularly bad idea to start with, I have to wonder if filing the nomination iteslf was a violation of the topic ban, since Wikipedia: space isn't mainspace. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (EC) If it isnt, Its pretty clear with the above posting it should be. Perhaps a discussion should be had to extend the topic ban to mentioning catagories anywhere? Obviously if you are under a topic ban for something, and you want to take an action that requires you to do further actions covered under the ban, then a sensible person would not do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's not shift the goal posts. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I prefer to think of it as removing the posts altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Alan, is this type of stuff of yours going to keep happening? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Give the guy a fucking break, please. Nobody has questioned his faithfulness to the project, and it's to be expected that there will be a period of acclimation to his new status, so it's incumbent on all of us to give him a little leeway to express himself, and not raise a shitstorm about it when he does. I ask every one of you to contemplate what it would be like if you were prevented from contributing in your own little corner of Wikipedia, and use that feeling as a stepping stone to empathize with what Alan is going through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • BMK, I don't think anyone is questioning his faithfulness. However, comments like the beginning of this thread reek of "you cannot do this without me, your project is a joke without my protection... you bunch of imbeciles for preventing me from stopping this horrible damage" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Let's please have less of the "Oh it's Alan Leifting yet again!" and a little bit more rational thought. Alan Leifting was banned, by my reading, for xyr recategorizing of pages outwith the article namespace — user-space draft articles, images, and so forth — in a ham-fisted and destructive manner that is, in xyr own words, "too fiddly" to do the right way that doesn't blank entire draft articles written by other people.

  Are we really extending that to being unable to nominate a category at CFD for renaming? Was Alan Leifting renaming categories or nominating categories at CFD ever a problem? Was xyr adding {{cfr}} to a category page ever a problem? It seems not, by my reading of the past discussions. If it isn't, we shouldn't be making silly procedural knots out of it just because Alan Leifting has managed to get this issue into four successive archives of this noticeboard. (Although it does seem that Alan Leifting has deliberately tried to create the procedural knot, in order to then complain about it.) If it is, then it should be clarified, with diffs (for which there are none in the past discussion), that Alan Leifting's Categories for Discussion nomination behaviour is also a problem subject to this remedy.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well renaming/nominating catagories may not have been a problem for him before. It is now. This isnt a case of people piling on Alan, if he had just used common sense in the first place, people would not feel the need to comment. Here is a simple clarification: Alan, dont start anything procedually you know you cant complete as it would violate your topic ban. There, its clarified for him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So...why didn't someone help him and tag the categories for him? Nothing wrong with that. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because he didn't ask. I could have tagged them and re-listed the discussion, but he hadn't even listed all the subcategories that were apparently being nominated, so I figured it would be just as easy to start a new nomination as keep the old one open and going. I offered to help him start a new nomination if he wants to, but he hasn't taken me up on it yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have asked for a list of the categories... --Nouniquenames 03:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's generally regarded as being necessary to list them at CFD if they are going to be renamed. The category tagging is the more important issue, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of topic ban

Alan Liefting has a topic ban on "category-related edits outside the main namespace". I would be interested in getting a clarification about whether that covers:

• Nominating categories for deletion, given that he cannot follow the procedure to tag the category
• Edits such as [101], where he edits a template to add a cleanup tag, because the topic ban prevents him from removing the categories. (For context, the lack of consensus that the categories should be removed was a factor in the topic ban itself.)

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the topic ban is pretty clear, and that it is also clear that Alan is deliberately testing the boundaries of it instead of making any effort whatsoever to respect it. Taking a category to CFD is a category related edit outside of mainspace. Adding a "re categorize" tag in the template namespace is a category related edit outside of mainspace. I don't see any grey area there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, per Beeblebrox, Liefting seems intent on pushing his idea of it being "all about the reader" and forgetting we work in a collaborative and collegiate environment. This means being generous and understanding to fellow editors. Liefting has often said he has little time for "niceties" like edit summaries or prod notices, yet that's at the heart of making Wikipedia a decent working environment. His continuous objection to understanding what a topic ban means, and his own admittance that he'll continue to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point (with his bulging block log) go to show that not only does he understand the terms of his topic ban, but worse, that he's keen to push his luck by insidiously breaking those terms and then cry all the way home when he's caught doing it. Wikipedia isn't a one-man-show, anyone can change categories of pages, but to do so in direct disagreement with the current community perspective is v sign we can do without. Maintain the clear and obvious topic ban which says he should not make any category-related edits outside the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to interpret the topic ban as precluding him from starting WP:CFD discussions. Particularly given that the topic ban was because of failure to work well with others, it's not unreasonable to me that if Alan thinks a category should be nominated for deletion or renaming, he should politely ask another editor to post such a CFD or CFR. He absolutely should not post a CFD nomination that he cannot execute (because of inability to tag the categories), and then throw WP:SOFIXIT in the face of anyone complaining as he did in the CFD discussed here. That seems WP:POINTy and disruptive to me, particularly given his indefensible stance that tagging categories with notices of the CFD was not necessary (and it would be difficult to find something as clearly against written policy, guidelines, and consensus).

  (Not that anyone has raised yet from what I've seen, but) I see no issue with him merely participating at CFD in discussions others have already started, however, even if that literally falls within the scope of "category-related edits outside the main namespace", because it wouldn't serve the purpose for which he was topic banned. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• That particular interpretation conflicts with longstanding consensus in other similar areas. (Specifically, at WP:AFDHOW, "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." Inability to complete does not preclude starting a discussion.) Either he cannot participate in such discussions, or he is unrestricted in them. I am of the opinion he should not be restricted in them as they seem unrelated to the reason for his ban. --Nouniquenames 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's merely a workaround for the technical limitation that anonymous editors cannot create new pages and so cannot start AFD discussion pages. It's limited to that context and the concern that you should not have to create a logged in account to participate at AFD; it is not representative of a broader principle that it's okay to start what you cannot finish, particularly when the validity of the XFD hinges upon proper notice to the community. Note also that it involves the opposite of what we have here: the anonymous editor must first tag the article, then asks someone else to create the discussion page. We also had the situation here that Alan did not even list all the categories he intended to affect, leaving it to someone else to do the work of sifting through the category structure and tagging probably around two dozen categories. And he never even asked anyone nicely to do that, instead claiming tagging wasn't necessary. So even if it was not part of the topic ban to begin with, if this is how he intends to deal with it at CFD (i.e., not deal with it) it should be part of it now. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A troubling situation

• User talk:BrownHairedGirl‎
• User talk:Good Olfactory

I want to say from the outset I am not looking for (do not want) someone to sanction anyone. (which is part of why I am here and not AN/I).

What I'd like is more eyes on this, to hopefully prevent this from escalating any further.

See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 30#Actresses.

As far as I am concerned, I don't care about the cfd discussions anymore, and am more concerned about the editors now. - jc37 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

... it would be helpful if you explained what you wanted "more eyes" on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, but a quick glance at the talk pages, makes it obvious. Bother editors are engaged in a discussion over certain categories, largely revolving around whether actors and actresses categories should be distinguished by gender. Many, many words have ensued, civil so far, but the temperature is rising, and no sign of abating. My concern (and my guess is that this is jc's) is that it may escalate to the point that one or both drives the other away. It is rare to have epic battles between editors with over 600,000 edits between them, and the loss of even one would be unfortunate. I don't have enough knowledge or interest in the underlying subject matter to provide much help. Sounds like a job for Dennis Brown.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head.

And these days anything related to WP:EGRS can be contentious, even amongst the cfd "regulars" at times. The lack of ability to reference categories (due to obvious technical reasons) vs. "I think a particular group should be represented in the categorisation system, to not do so presents bias" vs. "only those EGRS which are directly relevant to a particular topic may be categorised".

It's more complex than this, but I think that those are the basics. (If I missed a perspective, I have little doubt that I'll hear about it : )

There's currently a big RFC (which I think is likely to lead to several others) which has been open awhile. (It would be nice if one or more of would try to close that : ) - And there is a more specific one concerning actresses at the VP. At the same time, there were several actress by nationality categories up for cfd.

WP:EGRS has pretty much been the compromise that has mostly worked so far (not that such discussions aren't still occasionally contentious).

Anyway, so much for background.

My concern now is just as you said Sphilbrick, about the editors. And as I have been apparently placed in an adversarial box by at least one of them, my words alone are likely to have limited effect. Hence the request for "more eyes" here. - jc37 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, yeah, that actor/actress thing. Took one look at it the other day and just backed away slowly. Never expected that to get as passionate as some of the regional disputes! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about dates in Wikipedia

Could I get some input from an admin about a problem concerning dates and dating? Is it proper to use the term "BCE"? I cannot find a policy page on this anywhere, and perhaps someone could point me in the right direction. Is it proper on Wikipedia to use, for example, "The incident took place in the year 1267BCE", rather than "The incident took place in the year 1267BC". I reverted a good faith edit from an editor who was changing hundreds of such calender indicators all over Wikipedia, and is continuing to do so. I then asked her why she was doing this. Here is the talk page response: User_talk:Sue_Rangell#RE:_Your_recent_BCE_revert

I do not think these are bad faith edits, in fact I am not even sure that this isn't wikipedia policy. Can somebody show me? Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:ERA. Basically which ever version gets established first should be left that way. Trying to change large numbers of articles from one to the other rarely ends well. Monty₈₄₅ 05:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• [edit conflict] See WP:ERA. Basically, BCE/CE should be used in two contexts: (1) in non-Christian religious contexts, and (2) in religion-neutral contexts in which BCE/CE appeared originally. Conversely, BC/AD should be used in Christian religious contexts and in religion-neutral contexts in which it appeared originally. If you're writing on a religion-neutral topic that's never had either BCE/CE or BC/AD dates, you get to choose. It's comparable to WP:ENGVAR, in which we follow the national variety of English that's appropriate for the subject, and in which we defer to the earliest appearance of a specific variety if the subject doesn't have ties to a specific variety of English. For example, Heironymous Rowe and I both write about lots of archaeological sites in the USA, and since it's a neutral topic, I leave his BCE dates alone, and he doesn't touch my BC dates. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• And the background to what the style manual says is a lot of back and forth over several years, including editors doing mass changes who got sanctioned for it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Wikipedia:Eras, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2#Final decision, just for starters. Santurwoman (talk · contribs) is, all innocently, dancing out into the middle of a minefield. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you everyone. You are all great teachers. I have found and absorbed WP:ERA, and have all of the information I need. Feel free to close this topic at this point. very much appreciated, be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page error reports are ignored

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.

---

Not only are main page error reports ignored, I get told in the instruction on how to deal with a problem, that I should report it to the page that is being ignored.

Wikipedia has a main page with a do you know on it that says something that is not in the article (Intraplate deformation). I posted about this problem. The information is still on the main page 3 hours later. Shouldn't inaccuracte statements be removed from the main page?

Someone posted about a version that had the information in it. But I cannot just use that version, because the author of the article included information that is not in the sources he references. I don't know about you, but when I use a reference, it should say what I say it says.

Can someone remove the article from the main page? It is silly to say something on the main page, then link to an article that doesn't say that in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.131.23 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur: I realise admins are human, have a real life, and all that... but the length of time it can take to receive an admin response on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is rather dismaying. Very often, errors are not rectified before items (especially DYKs) disappear from the main page. I think a few more admins should add it to their watchlists. — This, that, and [Too late. That's the last time I ask for input (thanks to those who gave it), next time I(ll just act on my opinion first and come for discussion afterwards[User talk:This, that and the other|the other (talk)]] 09:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK's are approved in a previous state. Being the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" means that someone can and will modify a DYK article - often to its detriment. It also means that the meaning/phrasing can and will be changed. Perhaps the DYK hook on the main page should only link to the version that was "approved"? Other than that, how do you solve it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not the problem with this article. When approved, the statement in question (like everything else in the article) was cited to a large document without any page number indications, which are necessary for multi-page documents. Given the lack of a page number, I've searched through the entirety of the source for the statement at DYK, but nothing is appearing. This should be blamed largely on The Interior, who reviewed the DYK nomination despite the page's clear lack of support for the statement in question. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

True ... I guess I was being more general :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've left a more detailed explanation on my talk page, but what Bwilkins mentions above was the problem in this case. This edit, 10 days after my review, removed the content the hook was based on and the ref I approved. As to whether the hook ref accurately supports the hook fact, I confirmed that Glacial isostatic adjustment was a factor in North American plates. I am not a geology expert, so I can only go so deep into technical refs like that. Nyttend has a point about page numbers in large PDF's - I maybe should have asked for that. But it isn't a DYK requirement. Perhaps I should have been monitoring the article closely after my review to make sure it still conformed to the criteria I measured it against, but to be honest, my time is limited and I missed that change. Put me in the AN stocks if need be. The Interior (Talk) 19:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No. What Bwilkins notes was not the issue. When you approved it, the hook was sourced to a PDF that said nothing — anywhere, on any page — about the topic that the article claimed it did. You're not required to keep up to date with an article post-approval, but the idea of reviewing involves a basic checking of the sources to ensure that the material in the article is in the sources, as long as the sources are accessible to you. Page numbers, by the way, are a decent-size portion of Wikipedia:Citing sources: DYK does not permit pages that lack proper citations. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I did check the source at the time of review. "GIA (Glacial isostatic adjustment) affects most of the North American continent, with a maximum predicted present-day uplift rate of �15 mm/yr centered on Hudson Bay, decaying radially with distance." pg. 17 of the PDF. Hook statement: "that tectonic plates in the Earth's crust are not completely rigid but can be deformed by the melting of an ice cap?" By the definition of GIA, the plates are not stable because of the rising crust in areas of geologically recent glacial retreat. Again, I may have made an error in interpretation there, I'm not sure, I'm not a geology major. I just do my best and assume good faith. The Interior (Talk) 22:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is with the original author of the wikipedia article and that wikipedia has no geological experts who can catch these problems.

I am reading another article Interior is checking for DYK. There is a geological error in each of the first two sentences.

"The Grouse Creek block is a block of 2.5 to 2.6 billion year old orthogneisses (a type of gneiss) and similar metasedimentary rocks. The Grouse Creek block is one of several Proterozoic and Archean accreted terranes that lie to the west of the Wyoming craton, including the Farmington Canyon Complex (<2.5 Ga), the Selway terrane (2.4-1.6 Ga), the Great Falls Tectonic Zone (1.86-1.77 Ga), the Medicine Hat block (2.6-3.3 Ga) and the Priest River complex (>2.6-1.5 Ga).[1] "

First "orthogneiss and similar metasedimentary rocks" implies that orthogniess is metasedimentary. But the only time you would use the word "orthogneiss" in a non-geological encyclopedia would be to differentiate gneiss that is not of sedimentary origins. Orthogneiss is derived from igneous rocks.[102] Usually you would just say "gneiss", but this attempt to be fancy fails.

Second sentence, the Great Falls Tectonic Zone is not an accreted terrane.

The other article was just as painful to read. Blanking it was a mercy. This one should be gutted, also. It should not appear on the main page, if it has not already.

Structural geology articles on topics this complex require vetting by geologists. A geologist with five minutes could have told you neither of these articles were technically correct and both need deletion from wikipedia rather than promotion to the main page. --68.107.131.23 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And I am not that single geologist who will help. Wikipedia is decidedly unwelcoming to experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.131.23 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unwelcoming to experts who say "I am an expert and therefore you must accept what I say at face value." Wikipedia loves experts who say "I am an expert, which is why I know what the best reliable sources are to support what I say, and here they are." Perhaps I'm wrong, but you sound an awful lot like the first kind of expert to me. If you're not willing to (1) Write to a popular audience and (2) Support your writing with citations from reliable sources, it really doesn't matter if you're an expert or not, because you're of no real use to us, go write an academic paper. (Although I think they require sources as well.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, perhaps I am wrong but telling potential future editors that they are of no use to us seems to me to be both stupid, unhelpful and against policy!Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I linked to a reliable source, a dictionary that shows that orthogneiss is not metasedimentary, and I suggested that it should not be used anyhow as it's not suitable for a popular audience. I'm not the one using it, Wikipedia is. It wasn't necessary for that article, besides the fact that it's wrong (which my source shows). It appears I am more willing to write to a popular audience than the current author is, because I wouldn't use a wrong word that is jargon that adds nothing; even if he had used the correct word, it still would have been jargon. I provided a source, but the article's author did not.

You dismiss me because it appears I have expertise in the area, but both of your criteria for dismissal are wrong. You appear to have not read what I wrote, in your rush to judgement. It seems to prove my point, that experts don't stand a chance, because even when they meet the "criteria" you set, you say they don't, because you're not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; guilty for their crime of displaying expertise in their field. --68.107.131.23 (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I dismiss you, because your attitude is dismissive of us. You claim that we reject you, but you do nothing to correct the "errors" that you see. Quite possibly they are errors (I'm no expert), but if you're not willing to correct them, and would rather see the primary source for information on the Internet report misinformation because no one genuflected to your expertise and kissed your ring, then who, exactly, is at fault here? Fix it, or shut the fuck up.

And Kumioko, this person clearly knows what Wikipedia is, knows what some of its specific faults are, and yet refuses to step in and correct them, despite it being within his capability to do so. We're not in a position to have to grovel to such a person. Yes, we we would like and appreciate his help in improving the encyclopedia, but if he's not interested in doing so, I see no need to pretend that the loss is a significant one. Experts are, after all, a dime a dozen, as are amateurs, who often has as much knowledge as the pros, and are even more eager to share it. What we need to realize is that we're coming into a new regime where we are now one of the premiere channels for the propagation of knowledge, which means, sooner or later, the experts will come to terms with the fact that it's to their advantage to utilize us to spread knowledge about their specialities. When that happens, we'll see lot fewer of those like our geologist expert, and more willing to take it upon themselves to learn our system and adapt themselves to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK is a mess, promoting incorrect hooks and rubbish articles with a frightening frequency (between the many good hooks and articles of course). Women's sport in New South Wales[103] is one example which has "graced" the main page last week. I have had to pull other articles from the queue and even the main page for having incorrect hooks over the last few weeks as well. No action is being taken to remedy this, whether it is better standards, self-regulation, or checking who are the nominators and/or reviewers responsible for most of the problems. Most effort is put into getting rid of me for being "biased", and approving the same article again and again without actually addressing the issues.Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple answer. Train editors in procedures, not process. The essay "Process is important" is demonstrably wrong and is responsible for the current problem. Delete it. Process is not as important as product and the procedures required to create a good product. Screw process. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, for what its worth I think your part right. I think that the DYK process needs a lot of work. It also needs more help from editors willing to spend time wokring in that area. It seems to me that several of the key players have been run off from the process due to overzealous critiquing by Fram and some others about the "poor" job they were doing. I think what needs to be done is that the DYK process needs to be reviewed and simplified and some additional talent be recruited to help out, at least part time or occassional. Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Which "key players" of DYK have been run off from the process because of me? Fram (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The ones who weren't "run off because of me"? Gee, another "DYK is a mess" topic; fancy that :) When I last gave up (I give up there routinely, and then am drug back by some horrific thing I see on the mainpage, latest was a seriously bad BLP vio), Nikkimaria was singlehandedly holding down the copyvio fort. Different names, same problems. Scrap it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You would have better luck scrapping the DYK process! It seems to me that this is largely due to the expanding attitude of telling editors "you are no longer needed or wanted". There were a couple editors who were active in DYK and kept it running fairly smoothly. Over the past year though they have been run off or have decided that the drama in DYK isn't worth their time anymore and moved to other interests. Just maybe, if we stop telling users that no matter how much they contribute to a niche area like this that they are utterly expendable and can be easily replaced on a whim, it might keep stuff like this from happening quite as often. I would also note that Fram's comment grossly misrepresents the problem and anyone interested in the problem at hand should look into those comments and they will see a much clearer and accurate picture. Kumioko (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK as a whole needs overhauling - there are far too many articles getting approves that do not meet basic MOS. GiantSnowman 11:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, could you please explain how my comment "grossly misrepresents the problem"? Or is this just again a case of empty Fram-bashing rethoric? Fram (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fram I have no desire to get into another long debate about your "style" of editing. I have done that before and no one cared so now I leave it to them to decide for themselves. But they will need to perform due diligence to do that which I doubt they will take the time to do. As for your comments I will say this. I largely agree with the first couple sentences but your statements become less agreeable as the paragraph progresses to an end. I think we both know that there is more to that last sentence than wanting to get rid of you for being "biased". Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have the desire to get into a debate, then you shouldn't post accusations. As for "we both know", no, I don't. Perhaps in the future you should either clearly state what is that you want to say, or just shut up, since you don't add aything constructive or even useful to discussions in this manner. And if it is something you have already discussed at length, and the result was that no one cared, then maybe it is time to drop it altogether? Vague innuendo and handwaving will hardly motivate anyone to do "due diligence", but does help in derailing discussions by poisoning the well. Fram (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fram, the point is your a bully. You use your admin powers and influence to bully and harrass other editors that you don't like or don't agree with. Its unfortunate that more don't see it and irritating that some condone it. Your actions are toxic to the editing environment and the way you choose to "enforce" policy is both overly restrictive and unnecessary. I have no more respect for your editing style than you have for mine. The difference is I'm not running around advocating for all the productive editors to be blocked because I disagree with them or trying to make a name for myself. Largely for extremely petty and insignificant reasons. I have provided diffs in the past and many editors have voiced concerns with your actions, one peak at your talk page and archives shows that. The point I was trying to make with your DYK activities is that you have attempted to pander your influence there and it failed and now your upset. You have an extremely narrow view of what should be accpeted and the DYK folks don't agree with you. Have they made some mistakes, sure. Not the end of the world. But its partially because of your actions at getting a lot of prolific and high output editors blocked that we run into these problems. Little edits stop little problems from becoming big problems like this. But when editors like you turn into the edit Jedi and block all the ones that are fixing these little editors, you shouldn't then wonder why all these little errors are all of a sudden turning into bif ones. Just take you hand, put it all the way out in front with the index finger pointing out and then touch it to your nose. That will give you the answer you are looking for! Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that wanting DYK hooks to be correct (as in: supported by reliable sources) is "overly restrictive and unnecessary", then I'm guilty as charged. The rest of your rant is more a case of a fertile imagination on your part than anything else. "The DYK folks don't agree"? Take a look at WT:DYK, you'll see that in every case where I pulled an article from the queue or the mainpage, or complained that such action should have been taken, I am supported in this and people recognise that errors have been made which shouldn't have happened. But apparently these errors are caused by editors which I have had blocked and who made DYK run smoothly until then. Names? Examples? Diffs? Or just more repeats of your empty attacks which have nothing to do with DYK but everything to do with a grudge you carry around, following me around from discussion to discussion? As I said, poisoning the well is all I see here. Fram (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do see some agreement there but I see a lot more of general if you don't like it just go ahead and remove it mentality. What bothers me more are comments you made like "That's the last time I ask for input (thanks to those who gave it), next time I(ll just act on my opinion first and come for discussion afterwards". This statement emphasizes your editing style and what I have had a problem with. Anyway, we are way off on a tangent here but this emphasizes the problem with DYK and a number of other areas. Some users just do what they want while others get kicked to the side. Being an admin used to mean that you had some extra tools and you did what was best for the pedia. Unfortunately now its more of a status symbol that some users like yourself use as a mallet to get their way. Admins get to do pretty much whatever they want because they have "earned the trust of the community" and once they get the tools and they are entrenched its almost impossible to root them out unless they do a whole lot. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please check your edit, you have messed up someone else's text. Apart from that; my comment was about a DYK that afterwards everyone agreed shouldn't have been put on the main page, but that didn't get acted upon when I put it on WT:DYK at a time when it was in the DYK queue but not yet on the main page. We can always put articles back in the queue if they have been removed by mistake; we can never undo the damage after it has been on the main page for some hours though. But you accused me of chasing of those people that were most responsible for making DYK running allright, so that I was basically the cause of the problems I'm now complaining about. Do you have anything, at all, to back this up? Perhaps with a diff, so that people can see the context of my statements instead of just your quote out of it? Fram (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary, Kumioko says Fram is a bully, Fram righly points out all of DYK's long-standing problems in a perennial post that is written several times a year here:

Repost
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DYK is a mess, promoting incorrect hooks and rubbish articles with a frightening frequency (between the many good hooks and articles of course). Women's sport in New South Wales[104] is one example which has "graced" the main page last week. I have had to pull ofther articles from the queue and even the main page for having incorrect hooks over the last few weeks as well. No action is being taken to remedy this, whether it is better standards, self-regulation, or checking who are the nominators and/or reviewers responsible for most of the problems. Most effort is put into getting rid of me for being "biased", and approving the same article again and again without actually addressing the issues.Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

and apparently Fram is a bully for trying to do something about it. He joins a long line of "bullies" who tried and gave up. Long story short, DYK has multiple, serious mainpage issues practically every single day (copyvio, BLP vios, non-reliable sources, disgusting sensationalism) and expecting non-DYK admins to hop-to to clean them up post haste is unreasonable. How about instead more admins like Fram get active at DYK and pull the bad articles from the queue before they advance to the mainpage? How about DYK eliminates quid pro quo reviewing? How about the admin who puts poor quality on the mainpage in the DYK queue is held accountable? How about if DYKs were actually checked against their own standards? How about some way, any way, to make anyone accountable over there for what they put on the mainpage? So many ideas that have been rejected scores of times ... same ole, same ole. Hang in there, Fram! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I agree that DYK is a mess. I would have been willing to help myself and a lot of other editors would too but we can't because it requires admin access like so many other things these days. I also agree that a lot of good suggestions have come down that should be implemented but we can't because there are always a few editors that will find a reason not to change a broken process like this one, RFA and a list of others. What I was blaming Fram for was making it his personal mission to get several editors including Rich F and his bots (bot also quite a few others) blocked and or banned from editing. If they were still editing, problems aside, a lot of these messes would be fixed because the little issues would be gone before they become big ones. But because of his actions a lot of good editors are gone and even I don't really have the desire anymore to do much editing to articles. The reason that some of these problems are coming to light are because several of the highest volume editors that would have caught a lot of this stuff aren't here anymore. Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Antonio Pizzigati

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.

---

Preilly, a WMF employee, has created this article which appears to contain a copyright violation. The user has removed a {{db-copyvio}} and an SPA (David.schoonover) removed the tag again because the subject of the article is "legit". I was going to start a discussion with the user but they deleted the previous notification about the copyright violation and indefinitely protected their talk page. I can't even notify them of this discussion. This employee, assuming they are one, may not understand that this appears to be an abuse of power. I have no idea how to proceed. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

They haven't protected their userpage so I alerted them there. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

For what reason is their talk page protected? My understanding was that admins were supposed to be available to respond to other editors about their actions, and unless their talk page had been subject to excessive vandalism, it should not be protected. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was misled by a barnstar on their talk page that said they were an admin. Their user rights listing shows nothing. Are we sure this person is actually WMF staff? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Using popups, I can see that he has the Staff, recursive-export, sysadmin rights. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have redeleted the article and unprotected the user talk page, and left a note there about my actions and what I think about their admin tool use so far. They have performed admin-only actions, so they have to be some WMF staff or similar. Fram (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

They protected the page, so they clearly have admin powers here, apparently the WMF just have them to them. If they are going to use the, I this manner I think we should ask the WMF to take them back. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bgwhite left them a message about speedy delete criteria, which they deleted, and then left a "You've got mail" message on Bgwhite's user page, not their talk page, which seems odd for someone who is supposedly staff and a "Senior Software Developer for Mobile". It shows a certain lack of clue, as do their other actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding a page that shows this but when I hover over their username, where it shows me a person's edit count and rights, it shows that they are, "Staff, recursive-export, sysadmin". Maybe someone with more experience with rights can help here. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just saw that someone already noted this. So how do we proceed? Hopefully they respond here. I'll make sure that Bgwhite knows about this conversation as well. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nothing in the user-rights log, both here and on meta... which means whatever power they have comes from very high up. Which means if this is a compromised account, we can expect some serious damage. Read through all of WP:DESYS once out of boredom - there's no precedent with WMF employees to my knowledge, but I believe the general policy has been "desysop first, ask questions later." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If necessary, he can be contacted at [105]: the foundations pages indeed list him as a senior software engineer with the Foundation. He has in the (distant) past also undeleted (seemingly out of the blue) an A7 deleted page, that subsequently was deleted after an AfD. Perhaps it should be made clear that having the admin rights for technical reasons doesn't give him the right to use them for editorial reasons here, or that he at least has to follow basic principles like WP:INVOLVED. Fram (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing that can be done on the English Wikipedia We cannot de-staff on the English Wikipedia, as bureaucrats cannot assign or remove staff rights, as it appears that that was used here. --Rschen7754 20:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Per below, looks like it's all sorted out, but, for the record, I believe emergency desysops are always carried about by Jimbo or a steward. According to WP:DESYS, no one's been emergency desysopped by Jimbo since 2008, nor by a steward since 2009. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Far from necessary in this case, but a block is also a possible action we can take if needed (although of course the blocked editor could then unblock themselves; but at least it would send a clear message that their actions are seriously opposed). But like I said, this situation was still far removed from such more drastic actions. Fram (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There was an RFC to allow crats to make emergency desysops, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy. Obviously such action would not be effective in these circumstances. Monty₈₄₅ 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. I was thinking more along the lines of the risks of a compromised staff account, but the fact that there's a past history assuages most of that concern. Anyways, I should probably shut up before I say something else dumb. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, in response to OlYeller21 above: for people that don't have popups, a user's global userrights can be seen here, on the Special:GlobalUsers page at Meta. If it was a enwiki-specific right (e.g. admin), it would be visible at Special:ListUsers, but of course it isn't, in this case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And to clarify the point above about emergency desysops - as the "staff" right is a global user right, this means that it's granted by stewards on Meta-Wiki, which means that any emergency desysop on this wiki would not be able to remove the admin powers that come as part of the staff right - as the Foundation does not typically give local admin user rights to staff on this wiki (it should be done through global user rights on Meta). Thehelpfulone 21:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, all: we'll try to handle it at our end. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)y
  • I certainly hope it is made abundantly clear to this person that they have admin rights in order to do their job for the WMF only, that the community has not approved them to take any sort of administrative action here, and that their choice to abuse that position to undo a proper administrators action and to prevent users from being able to communicate with them is completely unacceptable. There is already a trust gap between this community and the foundation and this sort of behavior is not going to help close it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • A more Another serious issue is performing any writing of articles with a staff account, which, if I'm not mistaken, can put the Foundation's tax-exempt status in jeopardy. --Rschen7754 22:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It's worse than that, he didn't write the article, it was an extremely close paraphrase of another website, which is why it was properly deleted in the first place, so he actually added a copyright violation in his official capacity. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
        • It wasn't even the first time. Grand Angel was copied, with the sentences re-ordered, from here, when Preilly undeleted it in July 2012. But … before we all play the game of All Jump On The WMF Employee, let's bear in mind that WMF software developers are not employed for their expertise in encyclopaedia writing, and that the detailed rules of every possible wiki that a WMF employee could touch with xyr account are probably not part of the employee induction. ☺ A WMF employee did several silly things on the English Wikipedia with what is xyr official account. Xe certainly knows better now. Xe should review the policies relating to alternative accounts before xe goes any further, too. (Ask M. Keyes about how to make good use of official and non-official accounts, M. Reilly.)

          For the rest of us: I submit that our time is better served cleaning up Patrick Reilly and PassAlong Networks. I had a quick look around for biographical sources on Antonio Pizzigati and I didn't find enough for writing a good stub.

          Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

      • You know, if a low status editor said something like that we'd be having legal threat! hysteria. NE Ent 22:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Okeyes thank you for your response however I do believe that this sort of thing shouldn't be "handled at your end". Rather the community should be informed of your handling of this situation especially during a time when you are asking for public donations. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is all a little overwrought. Obviously this WMF guy pooched it up and I'm sure he'llbe (metaphorically) taken to a back room by the WMF powers-that-be and the errors of his ways will be explained to him. NE Ent 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that it was explained to him when he got them in the first place that they were only there to help him do his job and he was not to use them to interfere in any way with content. He has taken three logged actions with his admin tools here, all three of them dead wrong and cmpletely inappropriate for a staff member. I'm not asking that he be fired or even desysopped but the Foundation needs to send a clear message, to this community as well as to any of their own people not already aware of it, that this sort of thing is not ok and is exactly the stuff that creates rifts, be they justified or not, between the community and the foundation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, you're both right, I think. The WMF is the only agent here that can act in any sort of official capacity, as far as removing userrights or reprimanding him for using them, so they're who has to "handle" the matter. At the same time, given that this looks like it's been going on for a while (I see at least one very questionable action by Preilly in the suppression log from November, as well as the strange articles picked up on today) and was a violation of community trust in WMF staff, it would be really helpful if, once it's handled, the WMF or Preilly could give the community at least a basic run-down of what happened, why, and how we can be sure it won't happen again (by Preilly or any other staff). I'm personally very curious about what was special about the handful of articles Preilly created with that account, who the other involved accounts represented,and why Preilly not only created articles with his staff account, but created copyvio articles in promotional tones with his staff account. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I hadn't thought to check for suppressions. From the look of it he suppressed a page and all of its history when all that was needed was a housekeeping deletion. I'm thinking undo and then delete but I suppose there is an outside chance there is some media-wiki reason it may have needed to be done that way, although I can't imagine why... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The 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.

---

• Hold on, this new statement seems to indicate that the account is personal...if so, then desysop is in order, right? Personal accounts can RfA like everyone else.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That may be in response to the liability possibility pointed out above, especially given the timing. --Nouniquenames 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec) I read it as both, with his article edits being personal and others, presumably mediawiki space ones, being work. If that's the case it would help if some WMF people encouraged Preilly to create a (WMF) account as well as his personal one. We have had some staffers use one account for both work and voluntary contribs, but I'm not sure that would work for a staffer whose staff account had admin rights. ϢereSpielChequers 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • After looking, I see that the personal accounts of other WMF employees had to RfA to get admin rights.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I suspect this was more a matter of him not realizing that he had an obligation to separate his edits and not use his admin powers for non-WMF stuff, rather than him being like "mwahaha I shall abuse my staff rights!" Given that, it's likely that his new differentiation is a signal of "sorry guys, this isn't going to happen again going forward", not "I refuse to RFA and I'm going to keep using staff rights for non-staff stuff". I still think an update from him or the WMF (doesn't have to be in-depth, just a few words of "dealt with, no longer a problem, he gets it, we're good" would do) would be a good idea if they're willing, so the community can put this to bed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • If this is to remain his work account with admin bits then he will need to amend his statement and not make personal edits; if this is to be his personal account then it needs desysopped. The current situation is untenable.
           — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• The issue of using an account without these flags and separating the WMF from the personal has already been brought up at User talk:Okeyes (WMF)#Preilly. M. Keyes and M. Reilly are clearly in communication off-wiki, and this might not be what they finally agree upon. I suggest that you at least wait until it is daytime in M. Keyes' timezone and see what they say. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • FYI: I've removed Preilly's globalrights, to be restored after an appropriate training. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Vituzzu. I believe that the proper course of action here is for Preilly to create another account for WMF purposes which can have the rights after training and retain the current account as personal. If Preilly is the personal account as he has stated then it would be inappropriate to restore global rights.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Mtking has been harassing MMA editors and abusing his rollerbacker status for far too long. I think it is time for it to stop.

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 did not want to do this, I was very respectful with this guy, tried to work with him, but this isnt working. I think action needs to be taken. User:Mtking has a clear bias to MMA on wikipedia, he is obcessed with deleting pages related to MMA, and harassing MMA editors on this site. He constantly makes bad faith, pointy edits and harasses any users who disagree with his actions, even me, and I was one of the few people who didnt end up personally attacking him after his constant harassment. He has abused warning templates against me, acussed me of breaking 3RR when I did not, and falsely accused me of personal attacks. He has removed alot of sourced material from MMA related pages, which is vandalism and content removal. Wikipedia has a place for all sports, MMA included. We do not deserve Mtking's biased harassment, and to be called "fanboys" which in my eyes and many other editors eyes, is a personal attack. We have passion for this sport, where hardworking people give up their blood to help feed their families. Please understand that Mtking's bias is bad for wikipedia, and scares people away from editing on it, which hurts the site. It scares away potential doners to the site as well. Please, if you do not block Mtking, remove his rollerbacker status which he has been abusing far too long. I ask this as a faithful editor who has contributed to many MMA related articles, and other articles. Stop Mtking's biased crusade against MMA! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also admit to not reporting him earlier due to fear of biased admins who would discriminate against me, because I do not have rollerbacker status like MTking does. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Erm, really now... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(e.c.) JonnyBonesJones, I am a non-administrator who also does not have rollbacker status. I have also added content to the MMA area. I am not a likely candidate to be biased against you. Yet, I have to point out that you have been using final warning templates against Mtking and have been told by MBisanz - a highly respected and influential admin / bureaucrat, and a guy not given to vendettas - that your posts were inappropriate. He also advised that any post to AN or ANI should be backed by evidence (diffs, etc). However, your post contains accusations without supporting evidence, some of those accusations being the ones you have posted template warnings to Mtking about. Please, stop for a minute, take a deep breath, calm down, and then read WP:BOOMERANG, WP:VAND, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF (for a start). Then, spend some time reflecting on your own actions, your interactions with Mtking, and the request you have posted here. The path you appear to be on is not (in my opinion) a wise one, regardless of the merits of the dispute. EdChem (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Another incompetent spammer

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.

---

[106] - no doubt these "articles" will turn up here in due course. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• someone would be willing to pay money to a "writter"? caveat emptor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forty to sixty five dollars? Yeah, I'm sure they will get an article that is just super for big money like that. "Baby, warm up the car, we're going out in style tonight with my writer's money, we can have dinner at Applebee's and go to the discount theater with the sticky floor!" Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No, the client is looking for a "writter". Uncle G (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I dunno, I sure could use some extra Christmas money. And Wikipedia seems to be lacking in How-To articles about personal bookkeeping. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Any particular reason y'all have for being the proverbial WP:DICKs to someone over a typo? Or are "paid editors" analogous to the hisabetsu buraku, free to abuse at will? Tarc (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#Improper mass deletion review (closed)

I'm taking flak (at least partially deserved) over Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#Improper mass deletion review (closed). I'm in a quandary, however. SchuminWeb's close wasn't great. It's certainly a step that I would not have taken. However, it was at least 97% right. Of those 272 images that were deleted, I would bet that somewhere between 260 and 270 of them fail WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFCC#1, in that any understanding they impart is so trivial that they can easily be replaced by text. I'm not inclined at all to restore 272 images in order to salvage half a dozen.

Can anyone suggest a rational process to get past this? Some way to identify a dozen images that at least stand a chance, as opposed to simply reversing my endorsement and having to go back through the process 272 times to get rid of the decorative images?—Kww(talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As originator of the DRV, and as objector to some of Kww's language in the close of that, I support this request as expressed in Kww's 2nd sentence, para 2. My original intent was to focus attention on these three things: the poor quality (I argued seriously flawed and awful precedent if allowed to stand) deletion nominations, the poor quality close of all those deletions sans discussion even at the images which stood a chance, and to point out what I believe to be ongoing misinterpretation and misrepresentation of NFCC#8 language by deletion nominator, deletion closer, several admins, and the DRV closer. I do not believe, in good faith, that NFCC#8 is being followed as intended, and either its language needs to somehow be clarified by explanation, or we all need to be reeducated. I appreciate Kww's willingness to discuss. My lament is that I strongly support the NFCC as written, but nobody seems willing to read the same meaning from it. It's not self-contradictory. It's not some horribly opaque arcane text. We should be able to go forward from this unscathed. --Lexein (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lexein, looking at your comments to Kww and claiming that you are following an interpretation of NFCC#8, I would suggest you review the "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" uses of images on WP:NFC as to get a feel of long standing casebook examples of where images should and should not be used, most of these reflecting on the nature of NFCC#8. These should help explain what is intended by NFCC#8, which, reading the Kww messages, are counter to what you are interpreting it as, and suggests that you need to come to the long-standing meaning. We'll willing to see what clarification text can be made at NFCC to better explain that meaning, but as it is, the intent has been long established. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

By request: quoting the WP:NFC#Images requested section: "Acceptable use / Images / Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." in re WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#File:Andy_checking_phone_on_stage.jpg_.28closed.29 Maybe the acceptable and unacceptable use examples need to be changed to raise the bar more, because the episode was discussed critically by quoted, cited reliable sources in the article Andy's Play. The assertion that the scene can be concisely described, to replace it by text, fails: the prior suggested "replacement text" was reductive and IMHO absurd. --Lexein (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As you see, NFC#I says allowable used but all other NFCC must be met. A shot of live actors standing on a stage is easily described by free text and ergo can be replaced per NFCC#1. And given the article already does the job of describing the scene via text, the claim that it can't is bogus. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked where you asked, and answered you definitely. Nothing you have just said follows: cat, you've chased that moth before. It's purest illogic. It's insulting, unhelpful, disruptive, non-explanatory, and slightly embarrassing, except, apparently, to you. Your reductive "shot of live actors" is just that: reductive and explains nothing. If you don't understand that, it's not my problem and you're flogging a dead horse. If you do understand that, and you're just being disruptive, it's getting very, very tiresome. You cannot prove that the image can be adequately replaced with free text: every example you might propose will miss a detail which important to understanding the scene; therefore, I can prove text cannot replace the image, and the image serves better than text. I'm not the only editor who has made this response to you. Further, any such text is WP:OR. Policy, to be followed, does not require breaking of other policy. This, in case anyone cares is the essence of the problem: Masem is not abiding by the intent of the policy, and is hyperextending parts to trump other parts, so that all is Catch-22. I do not like being toyed with by manipulators of language, and I want them to stop. --Lexein (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, it is definitely not OR to describe a scene in text as long as no interpretive elements are brought in (this how most plot summaries like that for Andy's Play are written, assuming the episode is the primary work); moreso, if this scene is one that is described by sources to merit its inclusion, one can always point to those as sources to further distance any possible OR. There's no mishandling of NFCC here - all ten criteria have to be met, and while NFCC#8 is often the hardest and most important one to assure is met, all 9 others are equally as important, and that's what most of the images in this set failed to do. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

For the large bulk of the files in question, the matter is quite simple: no tangible argument for how they pass NFCC#8 was ever brought forward. Not by the original uploaders in the (non-existent and/or boilerplated) FURs, nor by the two boilerplated keep votes in the FFDs, nor by anybody who might have stepped forward to try and fix their FURs during the week they were at FFD, nor by anybody in the bulk DRV discussion. As long as that is the case, they need to be kept deleted. Let the remaining individual DRV threads play out, and let people bring forth new, individualized DRVs with individualized NFCC#8 rationales for any remaining ones they consider salvagable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the best way is to have any individual images be DRV and evaluated closer that way, ignoring any drama associated with the mass deletion that started it; in other words, working that the 272 image deletions may have included a handful of false positives but as the majority were proper violations, let those that want to use the images to request and argue restoration. (And unlike some other pictures, recapturing of screenshots is a trivial matter here; it is not like the original source is gone or hard to trace down, so I'm more in favor of keeping the images deleting and reviewing the exceptions, than bringing them all back and reviewing there.) --MASEM (t) 00:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A number needed very simply improved NFUR text, but that message was not made clear at any time in the deletion process. IMHO, it should be. Since there's time in such deletion discussions, the need to improve the NFUR rationale should be made clear, and required as part of deletion nominations where appropriate. Four words. Not a guarantee of surviving the FfD, but still. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not true; they needs text in the articles they were to be used that then would have supported the rationale to keep them. That's basically what NFCC#8 boils down to (give or take). If they are just there to decorate the page and not discussed in text, they immediately fail #8. There were a few that should be reviewed that could meet #8 but that was a handful, and far from a majority of them. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What? I said a number of images, because some of the NFUR were grossly deficient, according to several editors. Of course the articles also needed the requisite text and sources as well, I was not arguing against that, obviously. I refuse to be misunderstood. --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, asking uploaders to improve their NFURs very rarely has any positive effect. When I nominate these kinds of images, I very often include a remark about inadequate boilerplate rationale in my FFD nominations, where that is the case. Hardly ever do uploaders take the hint and try to improve them, and even if they do, it very rarely is an actual improvement. In most cases, such uploaders merely replace one piece of boilerplated generic drivel with another, more elaborate and impressive-looking piece of boilerplated generic drivel. The thing is, you can't write a good rationale for a bad image use case; if the article isn't right, there's just nothing to improve about the NFUR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Kww, I recommend that you revert your closure of the DRV because you improperly based that closure on your analysis of the arguments made with regard to the NFCC merits of the images at issue. What I think you should have done instead is determine whether there was consensus in the DRV about whether deletion process was properly followed in the contested xFDs. This is because deletion review is explicitly not a second round of xFD, but a forum for settling disagreements about the deletion rules (including disagreements about the propriety of mass nominations or the extent of administrators' discretion in closing xFDs).  Sandstein  12:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Subtle distinction: many of the overturn arguments were based on the notion that the individual deletes themselves were unreasonable. I don't know how to weigh such an argument without doing at least a spot check of the FFDs and determining whether the close was reasonable. In the cases I checked, it was: the FFD nomination represented policy (although some argue that "decorative" is an offensive term, it is the intent of NFCC to prohibit such images) and the keep votes did not. The remaining overturn arguments were based on the notion that there is something inherently wrong about doing the right thing a lot of times in a row, a position for which they offered no basis in policy, and I can't find one. At my best and most charitable, I could rewrite this as "no consensus to overturn".—Kww(talk) 14:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I can't agree that it's right to let the supervote/close of 250+ discussions stand, and require individual DRVs for each one. That's not FairProcess. It's important that DRV is seen to be doing its job; and that means a bad close cannot be allowed to stand because of special pleading. Kww says most of the images "deserved" to be deleted, but I don't see it that way at all, because that's simply not Kww's judgment to make. Or SchuminWeb's. The community decides what deserves to be deleted at XfD discussions. Administrators don't decide it on AN. Administrators have delegated authority to make deletion decisions only when certain narrowly-defined speedy deletion criteria are met. Otherwise, they shouldn't be pressing the "delete" button without a consensus to do so.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • With non-free images, the situation is slightly different though, because there is clear principle of default-to-delete (in the absence of any tangible argument for keeping) built into the policy. The tangible, concrete argument for keep must be made not just at the FFD, but more crucially, it must already be stated in the NFUR, and in most of these cases it wasn't. No matter how you handle the process, at one point the issue of blanket procedure versus individual debate will turn against these images: somebody must make an individual, specific keep argument for every single one of them, somewhere, and in these cases, nobody ever did. If these were restored today, I'd tag an estimated 95% of them for speedy deletion as either "no rationale" or "disputed rationale" tomorrow. Would you then go through them and write those (non-boilerplated, policy-conformant) rationales? For how many of them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Certainly I wouldn't; I'm inactive at FFD because I'm fundamentally uninterested in images. I use images from Commons in articles, and I've never uploaded an image with a claim of fair use. My concern is about the proper operation of DRV. Because admins have the power (but not the authority) to delete material based on their own personal judgment, editors with a concern about deletion have to be able to appeal to DRV. It's important that DRV is seen to take action when the concern is justified. It's simply not right that DRV should uphold a mass deletion when there are good faith doubts about it. If these images should be deleted then let it happen properly and in an orderly way, by means of the untainted process that you suggest.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone is trying to say that the concerned editors are acting in bad faith. But, even a good faith concern can be due to misunderstanding of policy, or simple disagreement. Sometimes the action DRV takes for concerns is to confirm the original decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The decision should have been to implement the consensus. Or to declare that there was no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree with S Marshall. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I suggest you go to the initial FFDs (example [107]) which for most had Koavf's nomination based on NFCC#8, and two "keeps" that offered no policy based arguments for retention. Given that that type of participation at FFD is currently the norm, they were closed properly with consensus. Now, low participation at FFD is an issue and I've made a suggestion to change a notification process to get more eyes on images (specifically, requiring FFDs to be reported to articles using the media), but given that if you look at any other day at FFD you will see nearly all non-orphan cases closed in the same manner with minimal participation, nothing is different about this specific day. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
            • What is different is that attention has been drawn to this particular instance, or instances. I'm quite certain that you are correct and that images are very often deleted with only minimal scrutiny or participation from the community, but that really is not an argument that can be utilized when the community sees something it doesn't approve of and wants it to be done better. "Business as usual" doesn't cut it when the problem is that "usual" is not very good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Except, those that are arguing for keeping the images appear to be worried only about a handful (5 to 7 of the 270), in which they are providing the better counterargument to the NFCC#8 claim on the nom. It makes no sense to turn over the other 260+ of them to handle the few isolated cases that seem to be of interest, and that's a good chance that even if relisted those 260+ will still close the same way. (This is why a caution needs to go to SchuminWeb to be careful when handling that many closures in a row). --MASEM (t) 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about having private edit filter hits showing up in the RC feed

Hi all,

I have started a discussion about having private edit filter hits show up in the RC feed here. If you could take the time to comment, it would be appreciated.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom, oversight, and confidential information

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbcom, confidentiality, and oversight

This is a notice concerning an RfC concerning the access and handling of confidential information by arbcom members and oversighters. And also changes policy concerning the granting and retaining of the Oversight user-right. - jc37 11:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Question on IBANs

I have a question for administrators. A small group of arbitrators are proposing an interaction ban with a user currently indefinitely blocked at WP:AE and previously sanctioned by arbcom, TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In the short history of wikipedia has anyone ever suggested an interaction ban with a site-banned user and what could it possibly mean? I have no idea how to respond to the handful of arbitrators making this bizarre kind of suggestion. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, per WP:IBAN an interaction ban prohibits, among other things, mentioning the other editor on Wikipedia, reverting their edits or contributing to their talk page. These aspects of an interaction ban could still have a practical effect in the situation you describe. (Whether they would have any useful purpose is a different question.)  Sandstein  11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I will have to search back to see whether such an IBAN has ever been applied with an indefinitely blocked editor. Mathsci (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

See the "Motions" section here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I did find a precedent for disallowing such IBANs. An interaction ban with Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously mooted by the same group of arbitrators. After a tip-off from me, Zeromus1 was indefinitely blocked by AGK as a sockpuppet of a site-banned user. Another arbitrator Courcelles then struck off Zeromus1's name from a similar proposed interaction ban.[108] Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There may be instances where one party to an interaction ban is later indefinitely blocked subsequent to the interaction ban, and the ban was not lifted because nobody bothered to appeal it. As far as I know there has never been an interaction ban imposed when one party is already indefinitely blocked. T. Canens (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User:Abd is an example. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Could an IBAN be a condition for an unblock? --Jayron32 04:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting they be unblocked, and placed under a mutual interaction ban with Mathsci? (Sorry for my lack of familiarity with the details here.) --Mors Martell (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Of course it can, but that's not really relevant here. Suppose that B is indefblocked; you can condition an unblock of B on the condition that B not interact with A. What's being proposed in the motion was to ban A from interacting with the indefblocked user B. T. Canens (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

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.

---

New article, nominated for AFD, edit war over if IAR/SNOW allows for removal of AFD notice. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• AfD is over, stop screwing around, there is no way this is going to be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Its over, because it was closed inappropriately multiple times by non-administrators, while the discussion was happening. We agree on the outcome, but IAR is bullshit in this circumstance. There was active discussion ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a "discussion" is overstating it; it was a pile-on against one anon, who was merely sniping at the keep comments with no real sense of policy or perspective. There was never any way that this would have been closed as other than "keep", both in terms of overwhelming "keep" support and because the historic magnitude of the event was quickly clear, so why isn't that an ideal example of IAR? We do not keep processes going just for the sake of the process itself, especially not just to give a heckler's veto. postdlf (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Off-wiki canvassing (MMA)

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.

---

[Not sure where better to post this]

There's some apparent off-wiki AfD canvassing at [109] note: I have no view as to the merits of the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting, but not really unusual. It doesn't look like Mtking has been notified of this and I'm not sure about who 'agent00F' is because the username is not registered. Slap the standard canvassing notice on the AFD and if we can figure out who the individuals are in this matter, have it brought to 3O or another venue. This really isn't major drama, but this is sounds like a personal matter and it does impact the wiki. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Agent00f is who you're looking for... Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified Agent00f Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've notified User:Mtking. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Of note there is a previous RfC/U regarding Agent00f and MMA based topics. See the mentioned previous visits to ANI in the RfC/U and their mainspace contributions when evaluating their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy. Recent AfD's have been plagued by socks. Look out, here comes another flood. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Off site convassing from those who want every single MMA event and fighter ever to have their own article on Wikipedia and damnation to anyone who would dare disagree! 76.205.1.40 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just finished reading the off-site thread. Wow - no wonder Mkting left. Agent00f absolutely made it clear that Mkting and a few others should be chased off so they can keep building their walled garden. Ah well - anyone who's tried to get in their way has been chased off so they certainly don't have any reason to stop. 76.205.1.40 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically. I had a look at the utterly laughable SPI report that some pro-MMA folk filed alleging that Beeblebrox (a damn oversighter) and Scottywong are socks of Mtking. In MMA-related discussions, I've seen numerous accusations that Mtking was some kind of "abusive admin" (his user rights log never show him having been granted the mop, of course). That a user as patient as User:Dennis Brown can jump headlong into the MMA disputes and come out of it reeling in disgust shows that something is definitely wrong. There was a RfC/U on Agent00f's behaviour and nothing has come from it. (I know, an RfC/U failing to positively change problematic behaviour? That's never happened before!) I have no idea what to suggest, but that this nonsense has continued for so long is ridiculous. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any current (or imminent) AfDs of MMA articles? bobrayner (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MMA#Article_Alerts lists no items that in my mind would set the MMA flood to come and derail the conversation, however it has been observed on multiple instances that calls to arms similar to this one have derailed any meaningful progress in attempting to improve the guidelines so just as I'm one of the named individuals in "the axis of MMA deletionisim" I would strongly encourage the previous behavior be considered before this ANI vanishes into the archives as all the previous ones have. Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of the finding in WP:EEMLmessages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided. I'd support an indef for Agent00f on that basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Any chance that this might be a joe jobs?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Having read the external discussion it reads like Agent00f and does have the hallmarks of their writing style including the blind hatred of people who understand WP's policies. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll defer to your judgment. I didn't bother reading it myself, but thought someone should raise the possibility.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LGR -- It's possible, but looking at the posts makes me think that's not the case. That someone cares that much about this is of order unlikely, but that someone would care enough about this to set up such a detailed fake is of order unlikely^several. a13ean (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never personally participated in off-wiki canvasing, and I don't particularly condone it. Maybe it's fine for soliciting advice to make articles better, but I'm guessing that's not what we're talking about here, and I am no fan of cyber-harassment. However, the attitude towards MMA I am seeing here is the sort of thing that is making it very difficult to move forward. Meanwhile many excellent contributors to MMA articles have run away from all of the drama, leaving people who are heavily invested, people who are jaded, or people who outright thrive on drama (I assure you I don't fall into the last category). Meanwhile a very pleasant guy who also worked very hard on MMA articles like Oskar Liljeblad? Gone. Anyway I think very few people who have helped out in WP:MMA would object to outside editors asking them to trim the fat. However there's certainly a middle ground between cutting an extremely notable event like UFC on Fox 2 (was the first two-hour UFC card on national television, and was headlined by two title eliminators in addition to eight other matches that had ramifications in five different weight divisions), and an article on Wild Bill's Fight Nights (an actual promotion by the way). That casual Wikipedia users and editors with an interest in MMA have reacted to the top-down approach taken towards deleting MMA events as a malicious attack, is hardly surprising. If you were going to try and improve hockey articles, you'd maybe delete some articles on minor league players who never reached the NHL, not random NHL All-Stars, and while that's not a perfect analogy, it's basically what this feels like. Grouping MMA fans together and belittling them as a whole as I've seen all too often around here is furthermore not constructive and not a way forward. This has been going in circles for a year now and it's reached farcical levels. As it were, I'm all for reasonable discourse. I think the pro-MMA camp would be very happy to re-establish specific criteria of what merits individual articles, what merits omnibus condensing (omnibuses would mostly be for combining multiple events into single articles, by year or whatever), and what does not merit any sort of article. I believe this was tried very briefly last time but the two sides were miles and miles apart. If anyone here wants to try to settle this again by establishing clear criteria with an open mind for what is inherently worthy of an MMA article and what is required to support that, I would certainly be open to trying that again (probably I'm going to regret this, but again, I hope we can at least all agree we need a constructive path forward). Beansy (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Beansy, the reason why we're at the current situation is because a compromise of the omnibus article was offered however the "obstructionist" (for lack of a better term) crowd kept re-nominating 2012 in UFC events for deletion because they saw it as the gateway to all the UFC articles being deleted. Being that several editors who offered the omnibus compromise have decided that the drama, harassment, personal attacks, and outright grief are not worth it, many have moved on and elected from a orbital strike against the entire subject area with the option of rebuilding from scratch. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@Hasteur, this is where everyone was miles apart. 2012 in UFC events, while better than nothing, was an objectively inferior solution to keeping things the way they were. Omnibussing third tier UFC events like UFC on Fuel (by year) or Ultimate Fight Nights (by year)? I wouldn't agree with it, but you wouldn't encounter a tidal wave of resistance from people either. Grouping all the events for short-lived-but-significant promotions like Affliction and World Fighting Alliance into single articles? Sounds fine. Omnibussing Bellator events by season? There's been no objection (it sort of makes sense since they do weekly shows in-season and their undercards are mostly fluff). Taking all 30 or so UFC events from 2012 and omnibussing well over 300 fights into a single article as well as the respective backgrounds and fallouts of the 120 most notable or so fights? It's unwieldy, far less user friendly, and eats up far more bandwidth. In short, it's not helpful, it's not a compromise, it's not a solution. In fact I'm not even sure why people are fighting so hard to delete major and popular articles for belonging to a community here that had perfectly fine self-regulation, regular contributors, and represented is one of the fastest growing sports in the world. A community that's been blown all to hell now. If someone could explain where this originates from or the motivations behind it I'd love to hear it. I think that's only been asked of your side approximately 15,000 times now (the motivations here, not the WP:N or WP:NOT reasonings; do I really need to link to similar pages from two dozen other sports that aren't being targeted like this?). Also nominating UFC 157 for deletion is particularly unhelpful: it is the first UFC event to have a women's fight headlining it (or any women's fight at all), the first UFC event to have an openly gay fighter on it (who is in the headlining fight at that), the inaugural UFC Women's Championship fight, and the first major combat sporting event of any kind to be headlined by an openly gay fighter. If you actually feel that's not notable I don't see how we can come close to hammering out a compromise. (And yes I did put all those things about the event in my comment in the AfD before putting it here; I can add articles when I have time to further solidify notability, and as the event draws nearer there will probably be as much mainstream English-language press for this event as there has been for any MMA event ever, considering that Ronda Rousey is rapidly becoming a supernova for the sport and Liz Carmouche is breaking new grounds for gay athletes). Beansy (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links for Agent00f:

• Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f

So long as User:Agent00f continues his off-wiki canvassing and keep bringing in other warriors to help him out, it seems unlikely that regular editors will have the patience to work on articles on MMA. I support Elen's suggestion of an indef block for Agent00f. This guy is not new, there was an RFCU about him in May. If he had any intention to reform he would have done so by now. The discussion in the RFCU shows that people were making a serious effort to compromise with him. These efforts were fruitless. The new thread at Reddit shows he is continuing with the usual battleground stuff. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just read through that thread, and I'm disgusted. What a horrible account; no wonder Mtking packed it in. I echo the calls above for Agent00f to be indefed. He's making everything even worse than it currently is; he's not here to build an encyclopaedia, just to win his own personal battle. He won't be satisfied until he's got his way and will never compromise, because he clearly views this as his own personal crusade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Agent00f. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I took the bold action of nominating UFC 157 for deletion. Not 2 hours after I made the nomination Common Sense MMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes in and argues for keeping reasons and personal attacks in the exact same way that every enthusiast (including Agent00f) reasons. I've already added the {{notavote}}, but I'm betting that we'll be able to drain some of the nonsense. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

More like you took the bold action of lying... You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable. Yet, anyone with a computer can take two minutes to Google search the event as I did and find out the contrary. Before you go making more accusations, I looked up the article after reading about in USA Today, not because of some Agent guy or some web forum. I found your discussion, because the top of the article links to it. Now again, why don't you Google "USA Today" and "UFC 157" and in a matter of seconds, you will see that this globally televised event is the 1) the first time women fighters will compete in the UFC; 2) the first time a women's world fighting championship will be contested both on PPV and in the UFC; 3) the first time an openly gay fighter of either gender will compete in a major televised MMA event from ANY promotion; 4) the UFC is the largest fighting league in the world. These milestones in women's, gay, and sports history are covered in USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, and other non-MMA specific newspapers even months before the event occurs due to these major changes in the sport and advances for openly gay people and women athletes. To say it is not notable is insulting to women, gay people, and thus not just to fight fans. Its significance is only going to increase. It is not somehow going to become less notable. It is an event of firsts. And as such, it will always be the first time that the biggest MMA promotion in the world announced a main event featuring an openly gay Olympic athlete female competing for a world title on a globally televised card.Please apologize and withdraw your frivolous and hurtful AFD immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common Sense MMA (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the stuff belongs either in the AFD or better yet, use these many sources to improve the article. However you have accused Hasteur of lying which is a personal attack if you don't provide evidence. For starters, please demonstrate where Hasteur "You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable" as I'm not seeing it. They didn't seem to do that in the AFD, instead they simply correctly noted that there are not reliable secondary sources used in the article and therefore it appears to fail GNG. Note there is a big difference between saying there are none currently used in the article and saying they don't exist. (And saying they don't exist may be a mistake, perhaps even in some cases are bad mistaken, but is not a lie unless the person is actually aware of the sources.) Hasteur may have did the former (said there are no reliable secondary sources used in the article), but you have accused them of doing the later (said they don't exist) without evidence. Note that while people are encouraged to search for sources before nominating articles for deletion and may find people getting annoyed at them if they repeatedly nominate articles for deletion with plenty of reliable secondary sources (just not used in the article), there's no strict requirement to do it in every case and in MMA cases which appear to be a mess, it's perhaps not unresonable to someone does not do so. If you are unable to provide evidence Hasteur actually said what your claimed, I strongly suggest you withdraw your statements and apologise yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

He's not going to get the chance. This is another sock of User:BStudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Is obduracy of the establishment forcing new editors to break rules, and then be forced to leave, is it hurting the project? Didn't Common sense make sense? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. SPA editors that are willing to sock, lie, canvass, obstruct and wikilawyer in order to bludgeon the system into capitulation do hurt the project, however. A few were blocked in this thread. Most MMA editors are good people, but a few that aren't have tried to make themselves appear to be the victims, using other editors as pawns, and causing a great deal of damage along the way. Win at any costs, no matter how many rules you break. If anything, people like Agent and others have made MMA a net negative for Wikipedia. Not because of the content, but because of their actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which leads to what is most disappointing about this whole episode...were it not for those few problematic pro-MMA editors deciding that the rules didn't apply to them, their desired result probably would have come to fruition to a large extent. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. In particular, I would note that if the now blocked editor had used their time as a sockpuppet to add all these reliable secondary sources that allegedly exist and cover the even in depth to the article rather than wasting their time attacking other editors here, in the AFD and even seemingly in Elen's talk page they might have contributed something useful in that time and who knows, perhaps even saved the article from AFD but instead they choose to do what they did. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is all very problematic. I wonder if we have reached the point where we should consider arbitration or some other form of external review/oversight of this area? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• My thought was some form of discretionary sanction. It would be along the lines of: Single-purpose editors who cite the needs of the external MMA community or who fail to cite policy at MMA AFDs may be topic-banned from further participation in MMA AFDs. If such editors fail to abide by the topic bans, they will be site banned. Closing MMA AFDs isn't super hard because the standard admin approach of discount non-policy based comments usually removes the effect of the external coordination, but it is annoying and I suspect the external coordination will learn how to game it over time. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a judicious step. Is that an arb motion or an AN/I proposal? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as individual AfDs for MMA are made as debates/discussions and not predetermined motions. Beansy (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Arbitration assumes that there is a set of editors who are as of yet unrestricted in their editing who are causing conduct disputes through their actions. Discretionary Sanctions may be applied by an administrator but those require an ArbCom case/motion to enact. Based on the amount of change that is currently occurring with respect to them (and that very few of the truly disruptive editors remain) I doubt this is an appropriate action. General Sanctions on the other hand are able to be imposed by the community and designed to prevent the disruption of Wikipedia, while at the same time minimizing the inconvenience to editors in good standing. As I'm neck deep in this it would be highly inappropriate for me to suggest any sanctions, but I do note that it is high time that sanctions be looked at one way or annother. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• You can look at past examples of topic-area sanctions that were placed by the community. See the first six entries in Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. As you can see, the wording varies from one to the next. If you want to use something like Arbcom's discretionary sanctions, you can just say that. That kind of sanction at least has the benefit of being well-understood by admins. It looks to me that MBisanz's proposed wording for MMA is on the right track, but is potentially gameable, because the externally-canvassed voters would just take care to make some trivial reference to Wikipedia policy every time while continuing to push their POV as usual. The Arbcom-style wording is: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Note that a single admin can take the action in his or her own discretion. I would clarify that this applies to MMA-related editing, but in each case the admin's action can be appealed to a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What in particular about Agent00F's reddit thread was enough for such a quick block, and why doesn't that apply to Hasteur and his thread here http://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/133rqk/wikipedia_isnt_out_to_burn_mma_coverage_to_the/ ? 10.0.0.x (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC) another blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f was trying to recruit people to disrupt wikipedia. I was going to try and build bridges and extend the olive branch. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Involvement from editors on other sports wikiprojects that have addressed the issue of which fixtures/bouts/matches/leagues/competitions are notable would be particularly helpful, but I can't blame them for keeping out given the behaviour of some of the participants. Which is a shame because the community has managed to sort this notability vs directory problem for most sports, but those with an interest have always had to be prepared to select the best. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the best (and nicest) MMA editors have been driven away already. I could be wrong but if I recall, this started with a single editor launching and closing speedy deletions of UFC events within hours, without following any of the guidelines, and spiraled out from there with a predictable hornet's nest reaction. Most sports wikiprojects have never had to face that. And @Hasteur, I appreciate your stated intentions but I don't think nominating UFC 157 for deletion was consistent with your efforts to extend an olive branch. I feel like I tried to extend an olive branch myself just before that happened and that particular nomination felt like someone extending a grenade. However, if you still want to figure out a compromise I still want the same. God knows the current situation is just painful for everyone. Beansy (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, you have been extremely hostile to me as an editor coming in cold from the AfD boards. I have no history of editing UFC articles and left you a question on your talk page and you came back to me with this. Furthermore, you've been very hostile to other editors in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 who clearly have no affiliation with this on-going battle. Your "olive branch" has been sour and very off-putting and disrespectful even to outsiders. Mkdw^talk 08:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA sanction proposal

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the the topic of mixed martial arts, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, banning from participation in deletion discussions any editor who reasonably appears to be acting in coordination with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

Given the above discussion, I'm proposing the above community sanction for MMA articles. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would support that. I've been as thick in mediation at MMA as you can get, and I'm afraid that soft words will get you exactly nowhere. Perhaps a big stick will have better luck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support that. The whole area is a walled garden of non-notable articles which are proving impossible to remove through off and on-wiki canvassing, sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I feel sorry for the genuine editors in the area who end up being tarred with the sane brush as those that are disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. (And has anyone pointed out that sites like Wikia may be their better option?) --MASEM (t) 18:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I did point out MMAwiki.com here Wikipedia talk:MMA#MMAwiki.com. Mtking ^(edits) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Other measures have gotten exactly nowhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, this is long overdue. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Question This proposal's wording seems really broad, but since I don't normally deal with this kind of sanction, I don't know — is it broader in scope than other sanctions in problematic areas? I'm just afraid that it might be used by people to get their opponents in trouble improperly. That being said, I agree that we need something here; if you can point me to established sanctions in other areas that are comparable in their breadth, I'll support this wording. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I cribbed from Ed's wording from prior Arbcom proposals in the above section and it generally seems to fit with the types of language used at Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree that it is perhaps a bit broad, however the off-wiki canvassing and willingness to create sock accounts just to win has now reached a tipping point. Mtking ^(edits) 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Broad, but so long as applied judiciously by administrators will help deal with this issue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I had the displeasure of closing a couple of these, and I'm amazed by just how bad this topic area has become.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Seems like every few days there's another MMA thread in Wikipedia-space. Time to end this madness pbp 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This is almost the same as the typical wording for discretionary sanctions, and it also calls out deletion discussions for special emphasis, which is where much of the problem has been happening. The mere fact that such sanctions can be available may reduce the temptation to recruit others externally to slant a debate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Quite keen to see Arbcom done out of a job on this one :) - it's not a matter of two sides in a dispute, the continued MMA disruption is a pain in the situpon for the community generally Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support No question that the bullies and bullcrap in the MMA subject area need to be reined in (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, since we need this, and others' comments have shown me that I need not have qualms about the wording or the breadth. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, nothing else is fixing this. Articles on MMA may well be about fights, but they shouldn't be fights. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: i have stated elsewhere that the UFC event articles need lots of work, and have been doing my best to understand Wikipedia policy relating to these articles. Two problems i see with this process are A) it seems that the users supporting the articles are less Wikipedia Savvy and don't see discussions like this, they only see the deletion of articles sometimes in mass and respond in frustration. B) given that there are a number of articles that need work, my fear is that it's much easier to put a bunch of AfD on articles than it is to do the work to improve them. if a number of the articles are removed, how would someone like myself know when it's appropriate to try to recreate them with better sourcing? Kevlar (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The formal practice is: 1) create a draft article in your own user space (aka User:Kevlar/ArticleNameHere, then 2) visit WP:DRV and request a review for the purpose of re-instating the article.
  • The informal way is to create your draft article (offline or in your user space) then place it at the appropriate article name. If anyone objects, you can point out that it's a completely new article from scratch. It may get sent to AfD but, if you've got enough sourcing to back it up, it should be fine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obviously necessary as shown by this and previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If this action will allow admins to respond quicker to the abuse and toxicity that is dealt to those who attempt to edit articles so that they conform to Wikipedia policies then I support it. I might even brush the dust off MMABot. I will admit to being a pessimist and believe that the rampant socking and anon IPs that come out of the woodwork won't be abated by this. I do have a couple questions:
  1. Will this discussion be announced at WT:MMA prior to the close of it? (The obvious reason why not to do so would be the flamewar that would erupt here.)
  2. If the sanctions are approved, would a notice be placed at WP:MMA or WT:MMA or some other 'easily accessible' page (other than WP:GS) that serves as notice to the MMA WikiProject participants?

That's pretty much covers my concerns/thoughts/whatever. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I hadn't thought of announcing it there because the current problem is more localized to AFD and I didn't want to intimidate MAM participants into thinking that everyone dislikes all of their editing. But if you want to leave a note there, by all means go ahead. We could make a sanctions template for use at AFD to remind people of the sanction. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Given the potential/demonstrated canvassing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support given the history. --Nouniquenames 03:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Given the continued disruption occurring in this topic area over a protracted period. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. A big problem since summer of 2011, and this strong action has become necessary because of a sustained pattern of misbehaviors by a wide range of MMA-fan participants. I don't think this action alone will solve the problem, but it will give admins a tool to help solve the problem, at least in formal procedures. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The constant disruption is getting tiresome. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Add verbiage "Sanctions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, WP:AN or ArbCom." NE Ent 16:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done MBisanz ^talk 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's a pity we need this, but we do because a weakness of the Wikipedia model is that a small but determined and organised group can get their way by making things so unpleasant for opponents that the uncombative majority are driven away. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  ...anyone else find it an interesting sociological study that topics based on war and battle-sports are the areas where we have the most wars and battles? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support We need to be able to enforce the standards and this is unfortunately necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I have a funny feeling this'll fix the problem a lot better than another round of RfCU or ArbCom would. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The sanction is too broad and has no specified expiration. It also does not specify exactly what type of sanctions are permitted for admins to apply. Based on the evidence shown here, the problem appears to be mainly at MMA-related AfDs. I can not support a sanction which would needlessly cover thousands of articles for an indefinite period and with non-specific limitations to the imposable sanctions. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; I've been digging into this matter (I can't say MMA has ever appealed to me, but I've seen this dispute crop up from time to time). We have a number of deletionists fighting with MMA-fans, and this sanction seems to end up favouring the former - for no obvious reason. I've looked through a lot of the deletion discussions and so forth and found it to be a case of individuals sitting in trenches unable to reach compromise. Many of the for/against arguments are poorly made with a focus on what I call "policy wonkery" rather than considered thoughts on content presentation. I suggest the community enforces some form of mediation that establishes a sensible way of covering this sport on Wikipedia in a way which reflects the sort of content we aim to have. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is apparently a guideline that has consensus at WP:NMMA. An example of where it works is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caio Magalhaes. An example of what this proposal seeks to remedy is Willdawg111's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Clarke and many of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155. Also, this proposal only favors those who engage in Wikipedia discussion over those who would coordinate off-site to promote non-policy retention rationales. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I do believe the bigger debate as it stands is the question of event notability rather than individuals notability. I've rarely seem a debate devolve into vitriol and across the bow deletionism vs fan socking so blatantly and repeatedly. Of course the fansocks lose, because of the policies enacted to discourage it in the first place, but the cohesive and coherent points by the more sane users get lost amongst the white noise. this has resulted in several discussions which, to my eyes, are WP:SUPERVOTE vetoes by the closing admins who have a less than neutral point of view and rather than participate in the debate have instead taken it upon themselves to be the arbitrators of the content (especially as several of the same admins appear closing the same debates, after a period it becomes obvious they are less neutral adminning and more taken it upon themselves to dictate the content of the area). I've said before this brings to mind the same debates that occurred three-four years ago amongst wikipedia and professional wrestling but WP:MMA seems to be a much smaller community than WP:PW was (which was active when wikipedia was at its largest) that featured numerous users and admins (one of which, SirFozzie, is now an arbitrator. I sympathise with the members of WP:MMA in this regard, it must feel like rocks trying to hold back the ocean, and to a large extent it is. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Can you list these "supervote" closures and give evidence of the closing administrators having a conflict of interest in closing them? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 8 Kww appears as a regular contributor, referring to the pointlessness of the debates at hand, and again subsequently at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_16 again endorsing the perspective of these articles consistently requiring deletion. Not shortly after being a participant in the November 8th DRV's Kww closed debates as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 156. They can not be advocated to be an uninvolved editor in these regards, they have firmly placed their cards on the table prior to these deletion discussions and are an involved admin in a content dispute. Your overruling of another user to allow Kww to govern a content dispute is a supervote in action. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I hardly think that an admin giving an opinion at a DRV (and it wasn't as if he was saying "delete everything") would preclude him from closing similar AfDs. And unless I'm in psychic contact with Kww, I could hardly have known that my (correct) re-opening of the AfD would result in him closing it, and closing it as delete. I fully expected an admin to come along and as Keep or No Consensus, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you think the dispute is "We have a number of deletionists fighting with MMA-fans" you clearly didn't dig into the issue long enough or hard enough. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is a hard argument with snide commentary to back up when one looks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 156, or more specifically the history of it. This article has not gone through DRV, though I suspect it will in the near future, however what does appear is that you, after editting the discussion, overturned a keep closure and then user Kww subsequently later closed the discussion as delete. To an external observer the same names pop up on both sides of the debate: Kww, Black Kite and Mtking on one side, and the members of WP:MMA (and their canvassed sockpuppets) on the other. It appears to me, and my knowledge of deletion processes, that after the subsequent re-opening the listed numbers (and arguments) in no way changed and a supervote was enacted to overrule the entire situation. Like I said above - it's a bunch of rocks against the ocean, the ocean having powers that the rocks don't. When the same admins keep enforcing the same actions against the same users NPOV starts to become a questionable position, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar#Final decision for the policies governing the rights and powers. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Black Kite; there has been constructive work on this topic, but at its core the dispute involves two (relatively small) entrenched camps bitching at each other. Neither camps behaviour has been pleasant; the best solution is for the community to mediate solid rules for the whole MMA area (I note that the current guideline only covers individual fighters) which will end the matter. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you means when you say "both" camps behaviour has not been pleasant. I'd like to see some evidence for that. But your point is met by mine - mediation has been tried - it didn't work - all we ended up with was a horde of MMA editors saying "sorry, we don't really care about your policies, we've decided every event is notable". They even managed (after AfDing it a number of times) to delete a merged article for "UFC events in 2012" because AfDs were ending with decisions of Merge. Meanwhile, nearly every AfD is deluged by socks, meatpuppets, SPAs and demostrations of obvious on- and off-wiki canvassing. If that isn't disruptive, I don't know what is. The people I actually feel sorry for are the few good faith MMA editors stuck in the middle of the tendentious behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I unclosed the UFC156 AfD because it was closed against WP:NAC by a non-admin who didn't take into account the strength or weakness of the comments, nor the fact - though he wasn't to know this - that a number of the !votes were from socks of blocked editor. I previously edited the discussion to remove personal attacks. I don't see any problem with either of those issues. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• That would be a matter for DRV to decide, not you. It would take some substantive knots to be tied in arguing to state you are an uninvolved editor in the proceedings and that you have no authority to overrule a non-admin closure. More importantly, and the part I keep coming back to, is when one camp has an admin in the pocket to close discussions in one direction and they don't need to take part to do so, the other side can uniformly be unable to win the debate as they have the impossible burden of being able to overcome the authority that closes. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• A DRV would merely say "closed against NAC, relist". If I'd wanted to close it as Delete I'd have done it - I merely reversed the close that was against policy. And by the way, if you're going to start casting aspersions at me, ("admin in the pocket") you'd better have some damn good evidence. If the "deletion" side did have that, do you think those hundreds of MMA event articles would still exist? Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is, again, not for you to decide. You don't get to appeal to authorities and then explain why you didn't appeal to other authorities in a content dispute. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it is for me to decide in this case - I think you need to go and read NAC ("Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator"). If the AfD had been closed by an admin, you'd be correct. But it wasn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do I retort with Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily) should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well. or does that only apply to non-admins considering your previous contributions to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 8, and I'm only looking over edits that took place in the last month. FGrom what I can tell this dispute has lasted minimum a year and the tools of certain users (including myself) should be nowhere near it. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to show how I have "a vested interest" in UFC156 or have edited it heavily. I can't stop you making insinuations about my motives, but at least base them in reality (or indeed, policy), please? Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• "No authority to overrule a non-admin closure"? I've rarely heard something so daft. NAC is just-about tolerated in the case where the result is completely uncontroversial. In any other case, NAC is utterly non-binding, and nobody should so much as bat an eyelid if an NAC is overturned by anybody for any reason. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I may support this on principle, but the wording needs to be more restrictive; otherwise, we'll have admins giving away indef blocks to any user who may appear to be confrontational. I would like to see a more specific wording, specifying which type of sanctions are allowed and which aren't, how they may be applied, etc. "Own discretion" is too broad for me. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's the way discretionary sanctions have typically been handled from my knowledge. The ability to appeal to AN or Arbcom is the limiting factor on abuse by enforcing admins. The fact that any conceivable sanction is on the table discourages gaming and attempts to test the limits. MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Having taken part in Agent00f's RFC,I saw first hand the need for some level of sanction that could be applied to this area. Blackmane (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Seems okay as long as it goes both ways (I don't believe the WP:MMA community started this war). I think hammering out clear criteria for event notability (including omnibussing) with WP:MMA's input and involvement and embedding it into the general criteria for sports notability (I forget the darn page for that, sorry) would be the best way to end this, which is what I think most people want, myself included. Beansy (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support As there are long running problems with MMA articles which previous interventions haven't been able to fix, this is entirely appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I fear that this may result in draconion actions taken against many good MMA editors and favor the deletionists. MMA deserves to be on wikipedia, just like any other sport does! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support So long as this also applies to Hasteur and Mtking, who I do think should be banned from deletion debates on this topic. Silverseren^C 08:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please feel free to show evidence of either of these user's disruption of AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support; sadly necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• At long last. The less said about the deletionist-blah above the better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I've edited in the MMA area in the past and saw some poor behaviour and absurd arguments, but I also saw some over-zealous campaigns against MMA content and unacceptable criticism of MMA editors, so I was on the fence on expanding admin authority. I was planning not to comment. But then, I got accused of making a personal attack (see further down this page and my talk page and that of MBisanz) for suggesting that an editor was walking an "unwise path", and I was reminded of the frustration I had in the MMA area. There have been MMA disputes for a long time and, on balance, I've come to the view that admins choosing to work this area of the 'pedia should be equipped with a bigger stick. I hope that it is not needed and that policy-compliance and harmony become the norm in MMA areas, but it is clear this won't happen on its own. Since an ArbCom case would take months to impose discretionary sanctions that have much the same effect and they are the obvious first approach to improving the situation, let's skip the three month wait and authorise admin discretion (with the usual checks and balances) now. EdChem (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – I have kept myself largely out of these conflicts within the MMA Wikiproject, so I can't speak to the depths of text based depravity that may have been reached in past attempts to deal with many of these issues. In my few interactions, as an MMA editor, with the wiki-admin community several things have seemed apparent. First and foremost, it does not appear that most if any of the admins gunning for mass reform have a vested interest in the editing, maintenance, or upkeep of MMA articles. That's not to say that they need to be solely responsible for content, however it suggests that they have no endgame in mind for what MMA on wikipedia should look like, i.e. what should be acceptable and appropriate. The response to MMA articles as they have currently been constructed is that all or most of them should be deleted. The sanctions being put forth here seem like yet another tool to drive working editors away from this project, and without admin support it's hard to see a way to rebuild it. I see that many editors and admins feel deeply about the problems in MMA articles, and I sympathize with them, but I can't see burning everything down and hoping it regrows into something better as a viable method of construction. In that light, I can't see this as anything other than another book of matches in that battle.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I believe most of the people supporting this do have an idea of what MMA articles should look like in the end - that comparable to other sports, in which not every single match is notable even if well-reported by sources, and to focus on the broader picture of the sport. Yes, there will be deleted articles, but that is becuase the existing walled garden of editors have fought tooth and nail to keep articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place. What the problem is that many of the MMA editors do not recognize is that WP is meant to be a tertiary summary of a topic, not a detailed repository. Offsite wikis are better suited for full details of the various UFC numbered events, while WP is better suited to highlight the championship level matches. This point is always lost on the MMA-defending editors, particularly when they pull in sockpuppets to influence !votes. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Had the problem ever been addressed this way, perhaps you wouldn't have this argument. To my knowledge this started from a position of top down deletions of all UFC events regardless of notability/title fights/etc. Much of the extraneous material has been deleted at this point. We no longer have articles around UCMMA events, or KOTC events, or M-1 global events, etc. But there has been no clear development of what an "article worthy event" should be and attempts to establish such a standard were quickly disbanded. And without that, attempts to delete, or consolidate all of them, without a vested interest in the building good event articles creates a naturally hostile position in which everything must be protected or everything will be lost. Giving people an extra tool to get rid of opposition seems like another push back in the "lets get everything deleted and then see what the few remaining people can manage to rebuild" camp.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure that early on the issue with MMA articles was pointed out in comparison to the coverage of most other sports on WP, with a long-standing policy that it is only the exceptional regular game that is notable despite the fact you can find coverage of those games in numerous sources. Fro the onset, most of the content in the MMA articles wouldn't be kept, period. I know there were arguments to summarize down the individual numbered event pages into lists which would try to retain the key results. It is just that those internal to the MMA garden didn't want it like that. Both sides were hostile to the other at some point, so there's that, but it was clearly the inappropriate use of off-site canvassing to block any attempt to make improvements that was the problem. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • And it's the mindset that "most of the content in the MMA articles wouldn't be kept." that makes this problematic. Telling a group that several thousand hours worth of work should all be destroyed and there's no room for negotiation is a terribly hard bargaining stance to take if the end goal is the general "improvement" of a series of articles. And the summarization of results into a single article was a good idea, but the way in which it was carried out was terrible, and any editor worth their salt should see that page as a terrible construction. But it's a starting point, a point to be evolved. Figuring out reasonable guidelines under which an event should be considered notable, and then constructing omnibus pages for non notable events would be a very good way to work within the community without trying to slash and burn your way through it. If people are this concerned about MMA's walled garden they need to try and understand and evolve the positions these people are working from. Measures like this only serve to further entrench sides against one another.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
          • As WP is an open wiki, getting upset at losing hundreds of hours of effort in the name of improvement is a waste of time - sure, I've been there seeing an article I've spend hours on get whittled away, but since that content belongs to the entire Wikipedia, I shrug and move on. Instead, my take on what I saw from various MMA battles were outside/anon/IP editors rush in to try to save it without understanding that. And that is the problem in trying to set up a reasonable approach to go forward - if those that really want to keep those articles can call in a proverbial army of socks to fillibuster and revert changes, there's no hope in trying to establish guidelines. Hence, why this proposal for sanction makes sense; the MMA editors can work with those that want to provide a sound approach to getting the MMA right, but the discontents can't go rushing off the peanut gallery to block such attempts; this would help set the expected decorum of such discussions. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Your dispassion is admirable. But we're no talking a person or a few hours or an article. We're talking about the work of 100+ editors on several thousand articles over several thousand hours. Asking them all to be dispassionate is unrealistic. And I have no problem sanctioning people for sock puppetry, but the wording of this allows for much broader use. It seems more like a tool to draw out dissent from mass deletion and then ban those dissenters. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is any admin going to step up and close this as "enacted"?

It seems clear that the support for the sanction regime is widespread, and in the absence of it we have the query below, which would seem to indicate that its implementation is necessary. Can someone please take the bull by the horns? -- I've seen people site-banned with less support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Preventing future drama

Apologies for adding a section after the closure but I think this is warranted. As I think everyone has seen, there is conflict between various editors on the notability requirements for the MMA area, both individual fighters and groups. There's also a small dispute popping up about flag icons. There's not much that can be done about off-site meat-puppets popping in but I think the dedicated editors would greatly helped by a couple of folks from here who haven't been involved with MMA. There's a nascent discussion on WT:MMA about creating a good structure here that follows the notability policy. Having a couple of editors/admins with a good background in notability and applying it to sports events to facilitate and help structure that discussion would be a fantastic way of reducing future drama. Please, if you can, pop over and help out. There a lot of dedicated editors on both sides of this dispute that would greatly benefit from finding a resolution and creating solid project standards and guidelines in WP:MMANOT. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this is one of the first reasonable approaches to this problem I have seen. It is very difficult to develop criteria for this topic as it involves a sport that is largely unstructured (or whose structure may vary from promotion to promotion), but rapidly rising in notoriety (at least at the UFC end of things). Repeatedly telling people what isn't good enough is a terrible way to try and improve the project as a whole and a concerted effort to develop content that follows guidelines and develops standards would go a long way toward smoothing this process out. There is certainly fat to trim in the MMA WikiProject, but attempting to bulldoze it as a starting point only furthers hostilities between editors and admins. There is some general agreement between editors that a more focused omnibusing project with well reasoned spinouts is necessary, but the more structure we can get in at the ground level the better. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But what you cannot do it have a walled garden that ignores or contradicts the overall meta-consensus on such content. If that means less spinouts than MMA would like than we should structure the composites to best allow the notable and enduring content to sit together in comfortable chunks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So far the walled garden exists only because the general method of dealing with the issue has been to cleanse with fire and hope that the next time people re-build they do it right. This approach has set many mma editors to feel that they need to protect everything in order to slowly improve anything, or everything will be lost and need to be rebuilt from scratch. Getting people in on the ground floor who are more interested in establishing clear guidelines through which the project could be steadily improved rather than just deleting everything outright and then trying to establish guidelines, would lead to a much more receptive group of editors. References have been made to a past, poorly planned omnibusing project, which quickly spiraled into a mess and got deleted, but that was still realistically the first step in the right direction. A more controlled version of that, that does not result in 100,000 word articles would be a lot less likely to get deleted. Anyway, as Kevlar announced below. Please take a look at the current guideline process before launching into a meta-consensus vs. MMA argument.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Walled gardens exist from a group of people wanting to do things their way. There's some regard for WP policies, especially at first, but questions are resolved in ways that best support their preference. Outsiders that point to concerns or flaws are dismissed, ignored or attached. The walled garden does not exist because of "cleanse with fire", it was there before any of that started. The "cleanse with fire" came from the resistance from the walled garden adherents. Pointing fingers and saying "it's all their fault - they are the bad ones" isn't helpful at all. Ravensfire (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying the blame is all on one side, having edited MMA articles for a number of years, I would say that the initial "walled garden" was a group of well meaning, but generally wiki-ignorant editors trying to develop MMA articles for wikipedia. And they were ignored for long enough for their systems to become pretty entrenched and they felt justified in believing that those systems were developed within wikipedia guidelines (not to say they were, but they thought they were). Much of the "pointing to concerns or flaws" that went on from that point forward was, "I'm pointing this out by deleting it, and it's up to you to build it back better than before." Of course from that point things get tricky, people have been underhanded, not used good faith, done off site canvasing, and generally ignored directives/missives, and much of the fault for poor behavior lies with MMA editors, that is undeniable. My point is only that this is developing one of the first concerted efforts to get the administrators that are interested in cleaning up the MMA wikiproject, actually invested in developing it as well, rather than just cleaning it out and leaving whoever hasn't been chased off behind to pick up the pieces. Laying all the blame in either direction isn't helpful.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at this proposal to change the notability guidelines for MMA Events. i really feel it could greatly diminish the ongoing bickering. Kevlar (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:PopeCyril14.jpg

This was moved to commons, but the file information was corrupted while it was. Can someone check the details on the deleted page, and shove a speedy delete on it if it's not good? Cheers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In January 2005 some basic descriptive text was added and the image was tagged {{unverified}}, in December 2005 the tag was replaced with {{pd}} with no additional information provided. In march 2010 the tag was changed to {{PD-release}}. There was no other activity in the history other then the commons move tagging and eventual deletion as moved to commons. Monty₈₄₅ 04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That really shouldn't have been allowed to move to commons, then. Thank you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, part 2

I have applied semi-protection to the article after someone posted the supposed suspect's supposed Facebook page, and someone else posted a bunch of links to photos from that Facebook page. I am sure admins are keeping an eye on this. Poor kids, poor parents, poor us. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've got the supposed subjects page (right now, a proper redirect) under watch, expecting that may be edited soon. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Facebook page has been taken down, but when I looked at it about an hour ago, it appeared to be the person the media has been reporting as the shooter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not the shooter. Given that the shooter was dead and he was going "IT WASN'T ME, I WAS AT WORK" after the shooting, you tell me. Alexandria (chew out) 20:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I think you need to check more recent reports, you're a little behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • NY Times is now reporting that Ryan Lanza was the brother picked up at the scene and Adam Lanza was the shooter, so it may have been me who was behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It was someone with that name. There's more than one guy with that name in the world. Wait until we know who's who. DS (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The Facebook page was for someone who was born in Newtown, CT, went to Quinnipiac University, and now lives in Hoboken, NJ. One report a few hours back (out of Washington) said that NJ authorities were searching a location in Hoboken for weapons. Sure, it could have ben a fake, but it wasn't a new account. It doesn't matter, I agree with Drmies' decision to remove the link, as any relevant information will come at some point from a RS, so there's no need for an EL to a primary source. I was just commenting on my own personal evaluation of the page, not recommending that it be used as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• To expand on a comment that Masem makes above, anyone watching the shooting page should likely also watchlist the (currently) redirect from the shooter's page. For better or worse, precedence is pretty well set here that the perpetrator of such acts are quickly notable in and of their own right for pages on them. The media and police pry apart their lives, and most of that info ends up in the perpetrator's page, not the incident page. So, once there is a bit of sourcable info, expect the shooter's page to be built out, and that it will need close watching just like the incident page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, per BLP1E, we should not have a separate page for the shooter, particularly since he is (reportedly) dead. The redirects to the shooting page are appropriate, but if this guy wasn't notable before the shooting, he shouldn't suddenly have a page because of it. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If he's dead, then BLP1E has no application. Simple WP:GNG or WP:CRIME instead apply. postdlf (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Er, yeah, good point, but yes, still wouldn't not expect a separate article. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No, Postdlf, I believe there has been some consensus in the past that BLP also applies to those who recently died. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • It's not just informal consensus, it's part of BLP policy as WP:BDP. Postdlf is entirely mistaken. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
            • News to me. Lord save us from instruction creep. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Further proof that crowd-sourced editing and breaking news does not mix well, this is the same amateur-hour bullshit we see every time this sort of thing comes around. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Tarc, I'm just watching CNN and now they're showing the one and identifying the shooter as the other (I'm from overseas: I don't do names). I'm completely disgusted by what this brings out--a whole bunch of sensationalist numbnuts who feel it incumbent upon themselves to report every little thing they hear on Wikipedia. That ***** who posted the Facebook page, and the other ***** who posted those photos, I have no words for them. Do you remember the shitstorm over Shooting of Trayvon Martin, where a whole bunch of such editors were reporting a whole bunch of news, and I got shit from a bunch of respected editors about protecting that? As far as I'm concerned, articles like this get locked down fully from the get-go. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I was just going to draw attention to this mess on User talk:Drmies, ironically. There are similar problems with Sandy Hook (Newtown), Newtown, Connecticut, and History of Newtown, Connecticut, both with bad writing (one of the articles had two sections covering this at one point) and poor sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• For the love of all that is holy blank the page, and lock it for at least 24 hours. What on earth is wrong with you people? Act responsibly, for once.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey give them a break they are serious compositors, recording for posterity accounts of mayhem, as it happens or didn't happen, or whether it was here or there, or what someone's brother said his uncle told him, serious reporting of all the speculation as its speculated. John lilburne (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Since we are an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper, we can afford to wait until things get straightened out, but I wouldn't be too hard on the editors who are trying to put together an article, since the reports in the media is just about as sloppy, and tend towards sensationalism and tabloid writing as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've watched the wikipedia page, and we've behaved far more responsibly than a number of news sources. Moving very quickly, with many critical eyes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So true that our reliable sources can't get the facts correct. The police bend over backwards to clearly state facts, and the news reports immediately report it with changes that are apparently not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "We" does not include a fair number of people, including this person and this person (and again), unless you aren't watching the right pages, or have a very loose definition of "responsibly". Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching our pages in comparison to how fast news sources reacted, and watching live coverage of the absolute bullshit they spouted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching over things when I can; I think I've gotten a lid on where it spilled over into Newtown, Connecticut, and the Lanza redirects are locked down (and a few variations are salted). I fully agree with the semi, and as always the talkpage is the place to discuss the content issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Non-Admin Comment - It is HIGHLY irresponsible to print anything at all until the facts are all in. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The page should be blanked with such a notice, and locked until such time as the media circus has found other more interesting things to sensationalize. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's not gonna happen, nor should it. The regime now in place (i.e. semi-protection, many eyes on the page, close supervision of behavior by admins) is working well enough that such an extreme response is totally unwarranted. For better or worse, we're a place that people go for an overview of available information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that would be a little aggressive at this point. While Wikipedia is not a Tabloid, the articles should be allowed to evolve with current events. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One small thing that could easily be done is have a new {{current-fog-of-news-war}}. At the moment all {{current}} says is This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. At least for some events, like this, there should really be a warning that says something like Due to the nature of the event, facts drawn even from normally reliable sources may turn out not to be correct. Quotes from or links to primary sources of any kind are not permitted unless taken from reliable sources. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea; rather than a new template, I've added an "incomplete" parameter to {{current/sandbox}} -- please see the bottom portion of {{current/testcases}} to see how it looks. An admin would be needed to copy the source from {{current/sandbox}} to the fully protected {{current}}. NE Ent 11:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

WP:RFPP needs a little care from the wielders of the mop, AKA admins. There are now 26 open requests. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's now somewhat under control with 8 requests pending; it could use some clerking though. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination

There is a discussion underway at DYK to discuss whether or not to commemorate Dr. Blofeld's 1000th DYK as a special Christmas DYK. Please leave your opinion there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, part 2

I have applied semi-protection to the article after someone posted the supposed suspect's supposed Facebook page, and someone else posted a bunch of links to photos from that Facebook page. I am sure admins are keeping an eye on this. Poor kids, poor parents, poor us. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've got the supposed subjects page (right now, a proper redirect) under watch, expecting that may be edited soon. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Facebook page has been taken down, but when I looked at it about an hour ago, it appeared to be the person the media has been reporting as the shooter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not the shooter. Given that the shooter was dead and he was going "IT WASN'T ME, I WAS AT WORK" after the shooting, you tell me. Alexandria (chew out) 20:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I think you need to check more recent reports, you're a little behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • NY Times is now reporting that Ryan Lanza was the brother picked up at the scene and Adam Lanza was the shooter, so it may have been me who was behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It was someone with that name. There's more than one guy with that name in the world. Wait until we know who's who. DS (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The Facebook page was for someone who was born in Newtown, CT, went to Quinnipiac University, and now lives in Hoboken, NJ. One report a few hours back (out of Washington) said that NJ authorities were searching a location in Hoboken for weapons. Sure, it could have ben a fake, but it wasn't a new account. It doesn't matter, I agree with Drmies' decision to remove the link, as any relevant information will come at some point from a RS, so there's no need for an EL to a primary source. I was just commenting on my own personal evaluation of the page, not recommending that it be used as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• To expand on a comment that Masem makes above, anyone watching the shooting page should likely also watchlist the (currently) redirect from the shooter's page. For better or worse, precedence is pretty well set here that the perpetrator of such acts are quickly notable in and of their own right for pages on them. The media and police pry apart their lives, and most of that info ends up in the perpetrator's page, not the incident page. So, once there is a bit of sourcable info, expect the shooter's page to be built out, and that it will need close watching just like the incident page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, per BLP1E, we should not have a separate page for the shooter, particularly since he is (reportedly) dead. The redirects to the shooting page are appropriate, but if this guy wasn't notable before the shooting, he shouldn't suddenly have a page because of it. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If he's dead, then BLP1E has no application. Simple WP:GNG or WP:CRIME instead apply. postdlf (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Er, yeah, good point, but yes, still wouldn't not expect a separate article. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No, Postdlf, I believe there has been some consensus in the past that BLP also applies to those who recently died. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • It's not just informal consensus, it's part of BLP policy as WP:BDP. Postdlf is entirely mistaken. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
            • News to me. Lord save us from instruction creep. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Further proof that crowd-sourced editing and breaking news does not mix well, this is the same amateur-hour bullshit we see every time this sort of thing comes around. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Tarc, I'm just watching CNN and now they're showing the one and identifying the shooter as the other (I'm from overseas: I don't do names). I'm completely disgusted by what this brings out--a whole bunch of sensationalist numbnuts who feel it incumbent upon themselves to report every little thing they hear on Wikipedia. That ***** who posted the Facebook page, and the other ***** who posted those photos, I have no words for them. Do you remember the shitstorm over Shooting of Trayvon Martin, where a whole bunch of such editors were reporting a whole bunch of news, and I got shit from a bunch of respected editors about protecting that? As far as I'm concerned, articles like this get locked down fully from the get-go. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I was just going to draw attention to this mess on User talk:Drmies, ironically. There are similar problems with Sandy Hook (Newtown), Newtown, Connecticut, and History of Newtown, Connecticut, both with bad writing (one of the articles had two sections covering this at one point) and poor sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• For the love of all that is holy blank the page, and lock it for at least 24 hours. What on earth is wrong with you people? Act responsibly, for once.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey give them a break they are serious compositors, recording for posterity accounts of mayhem, as it happens or didn't happen, or whether it was here or there, or what someone's brother said his uncle told him, serious reporting of all the speculation as its speculated. John lilburne (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Since we are an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper, we can afford to wait until things get straightened out, but I wouldn't be too hard on the editors who are trying to put together an article, since the reports in the media is just about as sloppy, and tend towards sensationalism and tabloid writing as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've watched the wikipedia page, and we've behaved far more responsibly than a number of news sources. Moving very quickly, with many critical eyes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So true that our reliable sources can't get the facts correct. The police bend over backwards to clearly state facts, and the news reports immediately report it with changes that are apparently not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "We" does not include a fair number of people, including this person and this person (and again), unless you aren't watching the right pages, or have a very loose definition of "responsibly". Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching our pages in comparison to how fast news sources reacted, and watching live coverage of the absolute bullshit they spouted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching over things when I can; I think I've gotten a lid on where it spilled over into Newtown, Connecticut, and the Lanza redirects are locked down (and a few variations are salted). I fully agree with the semi, and as always the talkpage is the place to discuss the content issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Non-Admin Comment - It is HIGHLY irresponsible to print anything at all until the facts are all in. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The page should be blanked with such a notice, and locked until such time as the media circus has found other more interesting things to sensationalize. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's not gonna happen, nor should it. The regime now in place (i.e. semi-protection, many eyes on the page, close supervision of behavior by admins) is working well enough that such an extreme response is totally unwarranted. For better or worse, we're a place that people go for an overview of available information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that would be a little aggressive at this point. While Wikipedia is not a Tabloid, the articles should be allowed to evolve with current events. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One small thing that could easily be done is have a new {{current-fog-of-news-war}}. At the moment all {{current}} says is This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. At least for some events, like this, there should really be a warning that says something like Due to the nature of the event, facts drawn even from normally reliable sources may turn out not to be correct. Quotes from or links to primary sources of any kind are not permitted unless taken from reliable sources. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea; rather than a new template, I've added an "incomplete" parameter to {{current/sandbox}} -- please see the bottom portion of {{current/testcases}} to see how it looks. An admin would be needed to copy the source from {{current/sandbox}} to the fully protected {{current}}. NE Ent 11:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Protecting templates used in MediaWiki pages

Does a template automatically count as high-risk when it's used in a MediaWiki page? I've asked for guidance at WP:VP/Pr (section header the same as this one) regarding MediaWiki:Gettingstarted-msg, and I'd appreciate input from people who actually do the protecting. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather we not prematurely protect unless absolutely necessary. The obscurity of mediawiki: namespace pages means that templates transcluded onto them are in general less vulnerable to drive-by template vandalism than on average. Moreover, as the VP discussion suggests, this particular case is a rather unusual trial that's being closely-watched by multiple parties. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination

There is a discussion underway at DYK to discuss whether or not to commemorate Dr. Blofeld's 1000th DYK as a special Christmas DYK. Please leave your opinion there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC

Just letting you know about Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC where we need some extra eyes. Rcsprinter (rap) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why? I see no signs of disruption and it's a bit too early to close. Perhaps we can have some eyes on List of straight people, though--whose redlinkedness kind of proves your point. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected edits

Could someone with some knowledge of templates and thus less likely than I to muck it up take a look at CAT:EP? We're nearing 50 edit requests, most on templates. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 06:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Did a bunch of them. You don't need knowledge of templates — just copy/paste code when requesters supply it. If they don't, I'll decline it and leave a note on the requester's talk page, saying something like "Hi, I couldn't understand your request, since I'm not good at template coding; please go back and supply the exact code you desire". Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dastangoi article

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

---

I had created an article called Dastangoi in the main article space. This article was tagged as "under construction" as I was in the process of building the article. I was being extra careful with my edits as this article was previously deleted because of copyvio. Whilst I was making my second edit after creating the article, User:Forgot to put name re-directed the article to my user space and posted the article for speedy deletion.

I put a note on the user's talk page requesting rationale for the move and speedy deletion tag. The user apologised for the action taken without stating rationale and suggested that the re-direct and move to delete was made since articles were better developed in user spaces and then moved to main space.

The page has now been deleted. What do I do? Prad2609 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly free to develop an article in mainspace, though to prevent deletion you certainly would be wise to do so in userspace. However, Forgot to put name should never have moved the article into your userspace. If you want, I can move User:Prad2609/Dastangoi back to Dastangoi - although you have been warned that it may be tagged for deletion in its current state. GiantSnowman 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article back into mainspace as user finds convenient to develop it in article space. Anyways, I am sorry for doing so. Forgot to put name (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And you messed up the new page move - that is why you shouldn't be messing with it - I've deleted all the redirects you've created. GiantSnowman 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Earlier today, I extended the semi-protection for this article for another week. The talk page could use more neutral eyes on it, to help explain and mediate. I expect this will be true for at least another week. If some experienced editors that aren't interested in editing the article would watch the page closely, it would be helpful. The potential for disruption is pretty high and tempers are likely to continue to run hot. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Adam Lanza article? I have half a mind to raise the protection on Adam Peter Lanza and Adam Lanza from semi- back up to the original full protection, but set to expire after a week. I see no reason for history to repeat itself here, given that many of us have seen this before. We need to learn from what has happened over and over, not dance the same dance yet again. Let's not do the premature-and-bad-biography-nominate-for-deletion-discuss-for-a-week-then-another-week-at-deletion-review-quickstep this time. Let's just wait the week without having the massive diversionary time and effort sinks, instead. There are plenty of other discussions at AFD that that time and effort by many people could be far more productively spent upon. Faithful amplification (AfD discussion) and Jumping to conclusions (AfD discussion), for examples. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What a refreshing approach. NOTCENSORED needn't throw NOTNEWS to the curb.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• The heat of the current situation and potential for damage warrants a slightly heavier hand than usual. All the wikilawyering and such (ie: reverting closing of threads) isn't helpful, although short of any individual action. I wouldn't be surprised if someone just extends the semi-protection longer than the one week extension, and I would support it. I want everyone to able to participate, but we have to balance that with our ability to monitor. Full protection on those articles as redirects is heavy, and technically preemptive, but I think doing so in plain site with the understanding that it is a reasonable application of IAR is warranted. And calling this censoring is absurd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Protecting the redirects as redirects is sound. Important though these cases are there is rarely any reason to have a separate biography article, even when everything is well in the past, certainly not in the first few weeks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC).
    
• Do it NE Ent 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Of course it is absurd. It is also inevitable that someone will call it that (if it hasn't already been said). I'm just saying that should not deter Uncle G from doing the right thing.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I understood what you meant. I've been here through all of these BIO-AFD-DRV cycles. ☺ The pretty coloured box was in one of them, at Deletion Review. I for one don't want to see the likes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed's rumor, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chiang again this time. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose an edit filter that prevents entering the name of the school or suspected shooter in any article in mainspace for a while. No need to screw around with multiple protection stages and people creating articles under alternate names to bypass those protections.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Wouldn't that affect this article too? I think at this time that would prevent more good edits than bad.. Unless we can implement a "accept awaiting review" for anything with that name. We in #wikipedia-en-pc would be happy to take care of it if that's technically possible. But I don't think an edit filter is good here. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Edit filters can easily allow thing in WP namespace and forbid them in article space. That's one of the nice things about them.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In other words: Yes, it would affect the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Bah, I wasn't clear. Not this AN article, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think, though don't quote me on this, that you can create an exception for specific articles using regex. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 03:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • • •  Done by Drmies (talk · contribs) NE Ent 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any value in considering putting together some "how to carefully admin a major tragic event" guide, involved when and how prot should be applied and to what articles, and to deal with a rash of good faith but misaligned edits from unfamiliar/anon editors, based on our experience with this article? As well as what doesn't work so that we don't keep going down the same paths? --MASEM (t) 02:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we really need to. As this can't be the last event like this, sadly. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary as long as we have an active core of editors. NE Ent 8:00 am, Today (UTC−5)

I'm thinking more of a shortcut of accepted admin steps to take that have been accepted and need no discussion in the very short term after such events (eg, is semi-prot of the article appropriate, is creating and full -prot of names associated with the event appropriate, etc.); these are decisions that after the initial flurry of edits can be come back to evaluate but in the short term to avoid disruption. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, anything is probably better than what we have now. Don't get me wrong (I don't think I'm addressing this specifically to you, Masem--I'm in complete agreement with you), I don't think that our current set of rules etc. can't handle it, of course. That shortcut, the more I think about it the more I like it. We'll have to hammer out a consensus: as far as I am concerned it's full protection for article and talk page all the way, and immediate salting of relevant titles and redirects--but I could settle for a middle way. What bugs me here as with the Martin shooting is that immediate knee-jerk "we must report everything that's reported"--we know very well what those dangers are. And the next thing is this clamor of CENSORSHIP!!! all over the relevant talk pages and AN/ANI. Sigh. Yes, Masem, I like your thinking. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• An active core of editors is nice, but though Uncle tagged me earlier to keep an eye on the talk page, my shift was cut short by RL. BTW, you all noted I protected one of the redirects and altered Rich's protection of the other. Cries of censorship--that strikes me as the WP version of Godwin's law. The internet presents a huge disconnect between input and emotional effect. It's not censorship to try and prevent massive BLP violations such as posting the Facebook page of a guy who didn't do it in a Wikipedia article; in fact, I still feel bad that I didn't rev-del those edits rightaway and I'm glad someone made up for my oversight. Masem's point is well taken though I wonder if we have the framework to do this: voluntary editing and scheduled tasks don't always jive, and if one of my kids makes a mess in the bath tub I'm going to run upstairs and fix that first, until Mr. Wales starts paying me by the hour. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• I will be honest, I think the current rules are handling it just fine. The reality is, we are stretching currently policy only slightly. Perhaps a little protectionist, perhaps cutting off disruption quicker than usual, perhaps with a slightly heavier hand, but still within the gray area. Every major event is going to be different and I just don't see how any manual will beat good old fashioned common sense (by the way, that was my "policy" rationale when extending the protection on this article). There has been one or two blocks, a few feelings hurt, but generally speaking, everyone's voice has been heard, the article is being editing by some, the talk page is being monitored for change requests by others, and behavior has been monitored by yet others. All things considered, I think we have done better collectively than a rule book would expect. We do have one rule that applies here, WP:IAR. As long as we communicate and act in the best interest of enwp, I really feel like that is all the rule book we need. No instruction creep needed. Be bold but sensitive, and we can discuss any disagreement here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Be aware I'm not talking about rules, I'm simply asking if it makes sense to have a page of what actions that admins - whether involved or not - should be enabled to take in the case of a fast-moving current event that has the potential to draw a lot of IP with good intentions but misinformation, or others; these are actions they can take in the very short term (a few days) that they should not be critized for nor seek to get approval to do. Once out of the "code red" period, normal editing rules would apply, such as getting a second opinion for adding protection, etc. Normal editing policy still is required at all times, but enabling admins to take actions that we all agree are appropriate helps to maintain the proper decorum of the discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • To give you an example, if a flurry of BLP violations started flooding the page, and it wasn't possible to police them one at a time, I would full protect the page for a few hours without hesitation, which is the normal process. I'm sure others would as well. Most of the new editor interest is by new IPs who are in good faith but clueless, but I haven't seen anything we can't handle, it just takes a lot of us to do it. I've been pretty active, as have several others, and it seems like most of the experienced editors are pretty clued in on how to manage it. I haven't seen anything out of control and we have faced similar flurries of activity before. Everyone chips in. Honestly, the community could make the rule book, but I probably wouldn't have read it and just have done what I've done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Length of full prevention on shooter page

So, from reading the above, is the intention to leave the (currently redirected) shooter page protected for a week? Indefinitely? My suspicion is that, unless it is left protected indefinitely, the page will be started soon after the protection is dropped, whenever that is. Like it or not, he's now notable. And like it or not, whenever the protection is lifted, we're likely to have the cycle of page creation/Merge request/AFD/DRV. Be it today, a week, a month, whenever. And if the past is any indication, in the end we'll end up keeping the article. This protection is not eliminating the cycle, just delaying it. And to my eyes we are substituting the opinions of a few admins for the normal consensus process. Ugly as that process may be at times like this, consensus is a core pillar around here. And past consensus, contentious or not, has been towards the existence of such perpetrator articles.

If this is really only going to be for a week, as was mentioned above, then I can grump away. But since I do not see this protection as solving any of the above mentioned problems, only delaying them, I worry that it'll not be just a week. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If he wasn't notable before the crime, then the notability of doing the shooting is not going to make him notable enough to have a separate article on him, particularly since he is also dead and thus only analysis of his motives/reasoning will come to light during the investigation. This is standard practice with people that only come to light because of a crime. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Anders Behring Breivik and James Eagan Holmes. Concur with temporary protection until the hubbub dies down but it should then be removed. Two weeks, perhaps. NE Ent 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You showed several that I was about to list. Seung-Hui Cho is another good example, as he also died in his rampage. I cannot think of an event of this type and scale where the perpetrator did *not* become notable enough, after the fact, to have his own article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He's not notable seperate from his crime - neither was anyone else - it's just with modern media crawling over everyone's personal lives / social networks etc. that some articles becomes too long and therefore merit forking. GiantSnowman 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's one side of the debate we get each time on these. But there is another side of the debate that says that the perpetrators are indeed notable. I'm sorry, but just proclaiming him not notable does not make it so. There are legitimate arguments to be made both ways. And in the past the consensus has ended up to be to have the articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be these articles, I'm saying these are unique occurences where the articles on the perpetrators exist not because they are independently notable, but because enough media attention is aimed at the crimes that some of it spills over into the intimate lives of the shooters and we therefore have enough material to justify a seperate article. It's because the articles are long, not because they are notable. That is why there is one article on Harris & Klebold, not two seperate ones. On a seperate note, I'd agree to prevent creation for a week or two, given the shambolic media reporting which has seen an innocent party get embroiled. GiantSnowman 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And I'm saying that there are arguments to be made that they *are* notable. These arguments are strongly made each time that we have one of these. James Eagan Holmes was most definitely not a "split out" article. For better or worse it was a separate article, started shortly after the incident, that survived merge requests and AFD. And there were indeed arguments made, quite strongly IMHO, that he had almost instantly become separately notable. This is likely not the right venue to debate this, but I'm hard pressed to just let slide comments that appear to proclaim as settled fact (his lack of separate notability) that are at the *least* quite debatable, and quite possibly are not fact at all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from a standpoint of GNG, the perp of a major crime like the shooting is instantly notable once the identity has affirmed, there's no denying that. However, we have policy like BLP1E (which I would also say suggests extends to the recently dead), as well as guidelines from the CRIMES project, that state that we don't create article on people notable for only one event (this is what's wrong with the Holmes article and it really needs to be merged back to the Aurora shooting one). Eventually, they may be spun out from the crime article as time progresses, but it should only be when SIZE is an issue somewhere. Again, I stress that a lot of these end up repeating the details of the crime and, if the perp is still alive, the pending trials and convictions. But if a lot more outside of the crime can be written (the two Columbine shooters for example) then great, that's probably a reason to expand. There is nothing yet for the Sandy Hook shooter yet that isn't already on the crime's page so there's no rush to consider unprotecting the redirect yet. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy and practice are pretty clear. NE Ent 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy (Guideline actually) is clear, actual practice is considerably more murky. All of the one event style guidelines are primary applicable to situations where someone is borderline notable, but due to the one event do pass the guidelines. Where one event has made a person incredibly notable, and attracted sustained world wide media attention, the one event style guidelines break down. Monty₈₄₅ 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, particularly that I've not seen anything much on the current shooter that isn't already well covered by the shooting article and the fact that rumors are flying around the press right now as to motivation (including linkage to a financial deception investigation and connections to the Aurora shootings!!) The article on the shooter would be a nightmare to contain, given how much work's going into the actual crime article. Maybe when things settle down in a few weeks and investigators know more, but we're far from considering a separate article right now. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is far from clear on this, I'm sorry. It explicitly lists 3 conditions that all need to be met for it to apply. The first condition applies. The second and third are not met. Do note that this is exactly the same argument that has been had on previous incidents like this. One side wants to apply BLP1E, the other looks at the wording of BLP1E and says that, by BLP1E's own criteria, it does not apply. And both sides argue past each other. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know with the shooter dead, BLP technically no longer applies, but at the same time, common sense says that if we create an article on the person without full protection, it will be a minefield as bad as the shooter article, making editors work twice as hard to maintain both. We have no DEADLINE, it makes sense to consider the options once the investigation closes and we can assess how best to move forward. People searching on the shooter's name are sent to the crime page, so we're not failing the reader in any way yet. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) And just to clarify where I am coming from on all of this. I'm not trying to argue that such an article should exist today, this minute. Given the media chaos, A week or two is not unreasonable here (grump grump). I'm not necessarily trying to argue that we need an article on this specific shooter later. I am arguing against the idea that this is a settled issue against such articles. Or that the only reason we have such is to split out overlarge incident articles. There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. But for one side to make statements as settled fact that are IMHO far from settled is to try to cut off that debate before it is even allowed to start. And that is IMHO very much against the way WP should operate. We have such articles on the perpetrators of most, if not all, similar incidents. And IMHO we do not have them all simply because of size splits.

This is a debate we have had before, it's a debate that we will almost certainly have somewhere fully about the current incident. And it's a debate we will likely have again in the future. People on both sides believe strongly, and both sides believe that they have policy on their side in one form or the other. And unfortunately both sides tend to argue past each other in these things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would say the outcome here should be that an article on the shooter suitable for mainspace should first be drafted by an experienced editor in their userspace. When the article is ready, the drafter(s) should request it be moved over the redirect. As the above comments, I would suggest waiting a week or two for things to settle down before doing so. Monty₈₄₅ 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The only time these articles should be created is if the article on the crime they did starts to get long, then it makes sense to make a separate article on the perp. The problem with these articles is that if this is their only claim to notability (as in the case of James Eagan Holmes) is that 90% of the content duplicates that of the crime committed; the only "new" info being usually a brief bio. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked about whether or not bio articles should be created; without full protection they will, soon. From what I can tell, everyone's in agreement here that full protection should persist for now until facts are clearer. With the holiday break approaching there will be a lot of people with time on their hands at home, and less reporting in the field. I think continuing protection on the redirect for a while is prudent to avoid the bio concerns. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As the admin who originally protected a few of those redirects, "indefinite" was intended to be "until things calm down and we have enough information to figure out what to do here"; since there's no particular point in time we know that will occur, I went with indefinite. As it definitely hasn't occurred yet, I agree with Shadowjams there don't seem to be any serious objections to the current state of affairs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about this as a proposal. We plan to leave the shooter redirect fully protected until *at least* after Christmas. One week ends sooner, but protecting through Christmas means we do not have to fight/argue about this in the timeframe right before the holiday itself. And that gives over a week and 1/2 after the incident for things in the media to settle out. We then plan to revisit the issue shortly after the holiday itself. In the day/days after there will be more people with more available time on their hands to potentially keep a close eye on the initial development of an article, whether it's in AFC space, user space, or in article space itself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with the overall sentiment here that the bio is inevitable but we are better served by leaving indef protection for now. This is the same idea we have used on the event page, perhaps being a little more strict in interpretation than usual, for the sake of managing the chaos and allowing everyone to have a voice, but protecting the survivors and the integrity of Wikipedia. Firm but polite. I like Monty's idea as well, having editors create the bio, move it over the redirect after the new year (and the kids are back in school) and I would expect at least a year of semi-protection. I know this sounds preemptive, but it is simple reality and we've already seen the problems when this started. I think this balances "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with our ability to protect the encyclopedia as a whole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Dennis. No hard dates of course, I think Dennis is just reflecting experience; I am slightly more optimistic that protection won't be necessary for that long, but we're all just guessing at this point. The point is, from experience we know how the editing patterns shake out, and so providing some policy to much of this is the most benign way to allow broader input and yet still adhere to consensus rather than !vote counting. Shadowjams (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Just for the heck of it I'll link to WP:LGB. Mind you, I did not pick that color. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Wow! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • My EYES! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Current AFD discussions

• You know what my view on the protection is. It's right at the start of the section. ☺ So instead I'll point to some current AFD discussions:
  • Hetzel Union Building shooting (AfD discussion)
  • Campbell County High School shooting (AfD discussion) (prior AFD discussion)
  • Delaware State University shooting (AfD discussion) (prior AFD discussion)
  • Richland High School shooting (AfD discussion)
  • James Eagan Holmes (AfD discussion) (prior AFD discussion)
• Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also Asperger syndrome

There have so far been only two attempts to add Sandy Hook to Asperger syndrome (a featured article where sources should comply with WP:MEDRS), but that may increase. Perhaps it can be added to admin watchlistss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected it. If someone thinks that's too heavy-handed, they can reconsider. Thank you Sandy, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor Dr. Blofeld

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 editor is posting abusive comments, calling other editors "losers" and blocking them from responding. As yet, Dr Blofeld has not been issued with any warning and in one post is sniggering "he, he" that they are able to circumvent wiki etiquette rules and block users. The bullying on this site is intolerable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.37.110 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Then please quit being a loser and using multiple sock ip accounts to promote your agenda and get an account and start contributing some real material then. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please provide some evidence of what you claim, preferably in the form of diffs. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I just double checked what I was pretty sure of already, Dr. Blofeld is not an administrator and therefore cannot block anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The 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 score was actually nil:nil, as a person behaving foolishly managed to get verifiable information removed from the encyclopaedia by other editors who were so distracted with the edit warring and the talk page histrionics that they didn't actually check things out for themselves. I have rectified this, after checking things out for myself. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The onus is on the person adding to ensure that it is reliably sourced, not with anyone else. I tried to explain that to the vandal on several ocassions, only to be met with someone who did not read the page about reliable sources and who considered that abuse and warring was the best way forward. The "fact" you have subsequently re-added fails both WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRIVIA. It's been shoved into the footnotes by a third party, although it is even dubious whether it should be there at all. - SchroCat (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You demonstrate exactly the sort of non-collaborative non-effort-expending attitude on the part of an editor with an account that makes editing so bad for so many, and that people rightly ridicule in cases like this where myopic Wikipedians foolishly fight to un-write the encyclopaedia. Calling someone who in no article edit did anything but add verifiable content and cite sources intended to support it a "vandal" is almost merely icing on the cake of how unproductive, uncollaborative, and un-Wikipedian that attitude is. Follow User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, which is the step-by-step guide taken from the verifiability and deletion policies of several years' standing, including its original 2003 formulation. If you see poor sources, put in the effort yourself to find better ones. You're supposed to be a collaborative editor. Stop thinking that your purpose here is no more than to sit in an armchair, mark other people's work, and use the undo tool, without otherwise lifting a finger to help when an article needs fixing. That is not our editing policy.

    And you're clearly not reading beyond the names of the shortcuts to the actual pages they lead to, another common failing. The concept of "weight" is about the relative emphasis on viewpoints, which has no bearing here; and neither was this a trivia section. (Indeed, the trivia section house style guide explicitly explains that it isn't applicable to facts.) Instead, it was a simple fact, verifiable from a James Bond encyclopaedia. Not only are you not reading beyond the initialisms and not following our editing, verifiability, and deletion policies of long standing, you have forgotten what we're trying to write here, which is a free content encyclopaedia intended to be at least as good as that one, telling the reader everything that it does. Get a grip on what you're supposed to be doing; read (and, better yet, figure out the underlying reasons for) the actual policies and guidelines, not the shortcut initialisms; stop treating people without accounts so abysmally and calling them vandals for adding verifiable information, and stop doing exactly what people outwith Wikipedia ridicule.

    Uncle G (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If I were SchroCat I'd be tempted to lift my middle finger right about now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't go that far - the diatribe invites nothing more than a yawn. What I will do however, is to point out there are a number of very good reasons to keep out the sort of trivial fancruft fluffy crap that editor added, least of which is that it's not encyclopaedic and it's too trivial to merit mention. If you somehow think this miniscule piece of nonsense does merit some mention, then it needs to be sourced. Not just because this is an encyclopaedia and it's what we do, but because it concerns a living person and having unsourced information relating to a person fails WP:BLP (now that's a policy). Let me remind you that the only policy worth a damn in this instance is WP:Verifiability. Remember that one? I tried to point that out the vandal (yes, I use the word correctly: ANI does not get protected every day for normal editors) not just in the edit summaries, by way of reference to reliable sources, but also ON HIS TALK PAGE. If you want to lecture me about "sitting in an armchair marking people's work" then get a grip of the facts first. One final point. Don't pre-judge me again and come out with the nonsense about "sitting in an armchair": you have no idea at all about my approach, my situation or my thoughts, so don't even try and double guess me again. (and by the way, "initialisms" isn't a real word—just a collaborative thought on your use of English) - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's shocking that nobody has mentioned that Blofeld openly repeated the "loser" comment here - regardless of the edit's worth, those kind of personal attacks are NOT allowed. GiantSnowman 09:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

They are dealing with an IP-hopper who stops hopping around long enough to create accounts like SchrodingersDogBlofeld (talk · contribs) and MrsBlofeld (talk · contribs). One who levies attacks like, "Enjoy your life as a sad, James Bond obsessed psycho."[110], then reinstates it with another IP. This is, ironically, the starter of this thread. Yes, perhaps the "loser" comment should not have been repeated. But it really looks like a frustrating, problematic user they are dealing with, and to AGF of an editor who is blatantly unwilling to collaborate is a tough pill to swallow for anyone. Just me 2p. Doc talk 10:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Article submission

I am trying to submit a article called Who Is Ant Mania....the article is about a musican — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTMANIA24 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You've already been told that it's not a good idea to write about yourself and that for an article to exist about you, it has to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In addition, your one attempt, which was blocked by an edit filter, was a blatant attempt at promoting yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice: Userspace articles

• Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Userspace_articles

I have concerns about the process at mfd concerning userspace articles. I would appreciate your thoughts. - jc37 06:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Improper blocking by Admin Drmies regarding the Sandy Hook article

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

---

As partially copied from my user Talk page shown here:

Very late last night on December 18th I added the following elaboration to the last sentence of the article on the mass murders in Newtown, CT, referenced to a reliable source. There was no 'illogicality' or 'synth' involved, but elaboration on the contrast to what the NRA said in response to the mass murders and what they have repeatedly done for the past many years:

"The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again", although it has in the past strenuously fought against all such measures."

After editors opposed to that statement removed it twice with various arguments [on their edit summaries], I replaced it with a direct quote from its source, saying instead:

"The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again"', although in the past "the organization has fought any and all attempts – real or perceived – to deny Americans their Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms".""

Admin Drmies applied a block to me at 00:40 for "edit warring" and then added "*You were warned *, you continued to edit-war against consensus on the talk page, you didn't participate in that discussion, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 05:42" Note* = another User added exactly three words to my Talk page telling me to desist from my edits

There are, imho, two serious issues with this: 1) there was effectively zero time given on the article's talk page (I had checked it twice before posting some edits, without finding discussion related to me), and more importantly 2) my edits didn't violate the policy on edit warring as encapsulated on WP's policy page:

“ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.... etceteras... ”

The caveat to the above is that while the page provides rules, as shown in the quote, it then gives Admins loopholes to decide for themselves what they want to accept in the way of edits to an article. Drmies used such a loophole after being urged on by a coordinator (a non-editor) named Ryan Vessey as discussed here on his/her own Talk page. As pointed out to another editor on my Talk page after being accused of not participating in discussing the elaboration I added to the Sandy Hook article:

AzureCitizen, I did indeed check the Talk page twice for discussion of the issue, which you haven't examined carefully. If you recheck the noted section with the very vague title "Improper Edit" you can see that the very first entry by Joseph A. Spadaro was at 12:16 am. and which did not even identify me. My name was misspelled on the very last entry ("User Harrybilzer it would help if you call for TP discussion if you actually discussed. :-) HammerFilmFan 12:48 am") two minutes before I was blocked by the Admin below; hardly enough time to engage in proper discussion of the subject unless you are a literary skeet shooter (pardon the comparison) in most editor's assessment.

This sorry episode smacks of a coordinated gang-up to prevent unwanted facts being brought into the article, specifically facts that reflect on the credibility of the National Rifle Association. It was the NRA which entered the controversy by commenting on the mass murders, and by doing so Wikipedia editors were properly permitted to add elaborations relevant to the NRA's statement. My elaboration of their statement were entirely consistent with the MOS, whether or not you agree with it. By the way, why don't you discuss Drmies comments, including his/her gloating on off-lining me, with his young coordinator Ryan Vesey as shown here, if you feel the need to address improper conduct. Did you honestly feel that a two minute window, when I was typing my last edit, was the proper amount of time to discuss the validity of other editors suppressing unwanted facts?

A very loose interpretation of Wikipedia's own rules on edit warring was used to knock out an editor that this Admin didn't agree with. When does 3 reverts mean 2 reverts, or 1 revert? When does "deleting other people's work" mean that others can delete your work without gaining consensus per established protocols or B-R-D? If 3RR is an optional figure to allow like-minded editors to intimidate others making valid edits they don't agree with, then it should be removed completely from the policy page.

In summary, Drmies applied an improper block to my account to suppress a valid elaboration of the NRA's statement—wholly permitted by our MOS. The block was done without warning on his/her part, in apparent collusion with Ryan Vesey who attempted intimidation (tersely: "Edit Warring -Discontinue"), with insufficient time for discussion, as noted above. Even if the elaboration I provided was unpopular with the many editors who support the NRA's conduct, it does not permit an Admin to censor valid article material under the guise of 'edit warring' because Wikipedia in not censored . Since the block has expired, I can now request that it be removed from user record due to the multiple errors on the part of the Admin.

[My original diffs to the Sandy Hook article:

• 1; followed by a deletion edit summary (by an opposing editor) stating: "non sequitur ... does not apply"
• 2; followed by deletion summary: "agree with Joseph, you're drawing a conclusion"
• 3; followed by deletion summary: "Not in citation given/POV"
• 4; followed by Ryan Valley's deletion summary: "Undid revision 528754649 by Harryzilber (talk) You obviously didn't read Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Improper edit can an admin step in or do I need to waste time at AN3?" (at which time I was alerted to the fact that a Talk section had been created)

and

• Drmies discussion/gloating on his/her Talk page related to blocking me, shown here]

Whewww. HarryZilber (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Please can you be more concise? GiantSnowman 18:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has done a commendable job monitoring this article for compliance with policy. I see no issue here warranting review. MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MBisanz, but I'm the least of the monitors. Let me just point out that there was no intention to gloat here, User_talk:Drmies#Harryzilber--and frankly, I don't see how anyone could call my comment "gloating". Drmies (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to read this; however, you were edit warring plain and simple. Even if other editors had not gone ahead with creating the talk page discussion the block would have been justified. Our policy is against edit warring, you don't have a right to those three reverts. In this case you were edit warring when other editors had concerns that you were inserting POV material. The onus is on you to seek consensus for that material. Ryan Vesey 18:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to why I'm being described as a "non-editor". Ryan Vesey 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine the OP meant "non-admin". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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