Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:54, 3 February 2012

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 24 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Talk:Max von Sydow#RfC on nationality in the lead

(Initiated 157 days ago on 7 June 2024) discussion effectively ceased on 19 June 2024 with arguably enough difference of opinion to require an uninvoved close. Thanks! Draken Bowser (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 93 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 53 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 8 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 13 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	4	4
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	2	5	7
FfD	2	5	7
RfD	20	14	34
AfD	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Category:American soles

(Initiated 8 days ago on 3 November 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 299 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024

(Initiated 19 days ago on 23 October 2024) No further activity beyond the first two days this discussion was open. Alternative page move titles were proposed by User:Pi.1415926535, but no real consensus has been reached either way. Discussion was relisted after the first week to the relevant WP:PROJECTS, but this has failed to result in any further activity. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Relisted and pinged the other participants to let them comment on the new proposed titles. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 16 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the out of process AfD was procedurally closed. This discussion still awaiting close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I hope I haven't totally botched the draftification. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 11 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hurricane Helene#Split out Florida?

(Initiated 12 days ago on 30 October 2024) Discussion seems to have run its course and needs closure.72.36.119.94 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

A few accounts on WP:BANNED not actually blocked

I ran across this page today while looking at some other things and noticed a few editors listed there are not actually blocked at this time. I understood that everyone listed there should be currently blocked, so I'm bringing it here to see if there's anything which needs to be done. Here's the current list of people not blocked who apparently should be:

Discuss away! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Most accounts in your list are blocked as far as I can see, except these four :

Triton is now User:Triton (usurped) (and appropriately infefblocked) and the change should be reflected on the ban page.
Guido den Broeder's talk page redirects to User:Roadcreature, which is indefblocked. Main account should probably be blocked too.
Zephram Stark is supposed to be indefblocked according to the block log, but for some reason is not...
User:Wanli has never been blocked.

CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteriously, Mistress Selina Kyle's indefinite block seems to have expired; the last block log entry is an indef block from May 2006. Lou franklin was indeffed in the same month, and Jonah Ayers and Zorro redux four months earlier. Unlike the other three, Selina doesn't seem to have left Wikipedia; she's actively discussing something on her own talk page. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users can still edit their own talk pages. I'm guessing that most of these entries relate to a possible bug with blocks in early 2006? As the "list of banned users" page says, Wanli was blocked by developer intervention, probably in the days when admins could not block registered accounts. Graham87 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the last sentence of my previous message, see this diff. Graham87 01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that blocked users can normally edit their talk pages; the issue is that this user (unlike the others) still wants to be active, so we either need to get consensus for unblocking or we need to issue a new indef block. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This case is being discussed on WP:AN/I, maybe we should drop a note on there mentioning that the account is not in fact blocked. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird that both the navigation popups and the user info tool show the accounts I did not mention in my first message as blocked; interestingly enough, if I go the block interface for Zorro, I don't get a "this user is already blocked" warning, and the block log notice does not appear in his contributions either... they don't seem to be blocked. Not sure why the scripts shows them as blocked but not Zephram Stark. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34014 --Closedmouth (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Mr. Treason doesn't have a registered account, I believe that was a name given to an IP vandal for ID purposes. I'm not sure what the deal is with Wanli... the user page is tagged as banned, but his block log is totally empty. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the link on the banned users page to point to the usurped Triton account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since someone asked me on my talk page, here's the Mistress Selina Kyle discussion [2]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me: BAN has a problem.

On the one hand, we all know that banned users are normally permitted to edit their user talk pages, e.g., to appeal the ban per directions given in WP:UNBAN. BAN also says that "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail" (emphasis mine), not that all site-banned editors are always or automatically prohibited from editing their talk pages. In fact, only a fraction of banned users also have a user talk page ban.

On the other hand, BAN also contradicts itself by saying "A site banned editor is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, on any account or unregistered user, under any and all circumstances, with no exceptions"—i.e., not even on their own user talk pages.

At some point we need to resolve this self-contradiction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done [3] Nobody Ent 00:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Germanic Neopaganism article

I request the attention of any administrator on what's happening to the Germanic Neopaganism article. A user named ThorLives has been systematically deleting material since last November, essentially reverting the article to a months-old poor, incomplete and unsourced version. Here you can read the former version of the article. Here you can see the extent of content deletion that has occurred over the last two months.

Despite complaints by various users no-one has intervened to stop this and restore the article to its decent state. ThorLives originally claimed to represent the Odinic Rite, a notable Germanic Neopagan organisation, and continues to claim to this date an involvement of many years with Odinism (ie the Odinic Rite). He has been using this claims to modify the article according to his personal ideas on the movement (Germanic Neopaganism). However in November the Odinic Rite Internet Information Officer took part to the discussions on the article talkpage and stated that ThorLives is actually not a member of the OR and does not represent it in any way (here his intervention). --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Whether or not that user has any affiliation is irrelevant unless it prevents them from editing objectively. Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist Catholic neo-Platonic pagan myself. I am not sure yet this needs an admin's intervention. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Kim Dent-Brown is on the case as well. For the record, the earlier version referenced above, this one, has a slightly better lead but also features a laundry list of organizations and their URLs, and falls totally foul of WP:NOTDIR. I have, in the meantime, restored part of that lead. What the Odinic officer (from out of steorarume) has to say is interesting but has no bearing on the article, and they themselves--admirably--invoke neutrality. I move to close this: there is no need whatsoever for admin intervention; what's needed is editors with a bookshelf full of reliable sources. The insinuation that some user needs to be punished for their edits to the article, the claim that there is wholesale destruction going on, they are both unfounded. Bhlegkorbh is urged to reconsider various Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted this has come to AN because I hope it will bring some more eyes - and in fact has already done so, thanks Drmies. Disclosure: I am an admin but have been editing there as what I hope is an honest broker between editors with strong views and have not used my admin privileges. I have some sympathy with the article's topic, being Wiccan, but no great familiarity with the detail.

I try to AGF and I'm probably a bit of a softy as far as trying to keep people on board, but I must admit Bhlegkorbh has strained my ability to AGF to breaking point! Since November s/he has made about 45 edits to the article talk page, complaining about the article's quality. I have encouraged him/her to make changes to the article but s/he has only made three; two minor typo/formatting and one massive reversion to a version of the article that was several weeks old and embodies the "perfect state" to which s/he wants it to be returned. Bhlegkorbh did not on that occasion discuss the reversion before or after the fact, and I note that this AN post has not been mentioned there either, nor on ThorLives' talk page (I will rectify that in a second).

I agree with Drmies view that this complaint is unfounded but I'd like to see if anyone else has feedback in case (a) my perspective needs knocking straight or (b) I have things about right and we can offer Bhlegkorbh a definitive community view. This would be very helpful for the future of the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be moot now as the OP has indicated that s/he is retiring from Wikipedia. If someone uninvolved would like to close this, I suggest we are done here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User has reverted the blanking of their Talk page, so we'll leave this up a while more. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey?

I received via e-mail (presumably through Wikipedia's e-mail facility) a request to participate in a survey about Wikipedia. Without revealing names, the investigator is a PhD candidate at the City University of Hong Kong, and the return address and URL for the survey do indeed seem to be from that institution.

Is anyone aware of the legitimacy of this survey? Is it sanctioned by the WMF, or is the Foundation at least aware of it? Just checking out of an abundance of caution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Just noticed that the username the email supposedly came from (listed at the bottom of the mail) is not a name I can find here. If someone from the WMF wants to contact me via e-mail -- preferably someone whose name I would know from seeing it here (i.e. Phillipe) -- I can pass along the particulars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to respond because: (a) the email contained a unique-ID link to the questionnaire (ie which email/accountname it had been sent to), (b) the first questions then asked were personal details, (c) those personal details were not skippable when left blank. —Sladen (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Normally I'd just merrily fill a form like that with junk/misleading data; however since I care about Wikipedia and if it indeed genuine, I'd rather than do that.[reply]

I can't see anything at meta:Research:Projects#2012_projects that sounds like that. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will pass on responding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need clearer guidelines about security and surveys as I mentioned here. Things like legal threats lead to instant blocks, and there should be something similar for those who run unapproved surveys (blocked until survey is WMF approved or withdrawn). Exploits are going to occur when admins respond to surveys targeted at damaging Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it starts to look a lot like phising, which is something we should be protecting ourselves from.

FWIW, Philippe asked on my talk page to e-mail him the survey info, and I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the survey weeks ago. I don't remember answering anything too personal and I haven't been sent any (additional) spam. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This survey may be wonderful, but there will be malicious surveys and we need to start protecting the community by making a policy analagous to WP:NLT to say that any editor who asks another editor to complete an off-wiki survey will be blocked until it is established that the survey is WMF approved or the survey is withdrawn (that would include removal from the website notified in the survey request). If a "no unapproved surveys" policy were in place, editors (and admins in particular) would think more before responding to unknown people at unknown websites, and there would be a reasonable chance that any wide-spread survey notification would be reported. By the way, attackers are sufficiently clever to not cause any visible damage while more targets are being gathered (if you suddenly got spam or if your account was compromised, you might alert others that it was possibly caused by the survey). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should work out more ways that people can possibly harm others by purporting to study Wikipedia. I also think that a "block non-identified surveyors on sight" policy would be a wonderful way to welcome academics potentially interested in Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I am rather pessimistic when it comes to security. I take your point that an instant block may not be a good approach—what about a polite request to explain the situation at their talk page (a request that would lead to a block if ignored after reasonable notices are given)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with that in the present instance is that I couldn't find a username which corresponded to the one listed on the e-mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. If Wikipedia mail was used, there should have been a footer visible at the bottom saying This e-mail was sent by user "Example" on the English Wikipedia to user "Another example". The "Example" user may have no user page or talk page, but Special:Contributions/Example should show that the user exists, even if no edits. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my e-mail has that footer, but I must have been typing in the name incorrectly, because when I cut-and-pasted it just now, I found the user: User talk:Ling JIANG. Another editor has left Ling JIANG a note pointing them to meta:Research:Subject recruitment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much review does an AfD need prior to closing?

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thumb twiddling the AfD had one neutral comment, and one keep vote , and, of course, the nomination for deletion. An experienced editor closed the discussion. The closing editor later replied that AfDs do not have a minimum requirement for participation. My intention is not to discuss the article's merits here. I'd rather see a discussion centered around AfD participation prior to closing. In the case at hand, I would have expected to see the article re-listed for discussion, and if we don't have such a requirement in these cases, shouldn't we? Rklawton (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DRV. There is no numerical limit regarding participation in an XFD discussion, and no time limit beyond the 7-day minimum, excepting when WP:SNOW qualifies. If you think a discussion was closed inappropriately for any reason, regardless of what the closer said the outcome was, then the proper venue is WP:DRV. There, other editors can review the close and decide if it needs to be reopened. Please use WP:DRV to contest deletion discussions for any reason, because that is what WP:DRV was created to handle. --Jayron32 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my original note, I'm not contesting the closure. I'm asking fellow admins if we want to establish a minimum for participation - though I like your suggestion that it wouldn't apply to SNOW. Until yesterday, I'd not seen a non-SNOW case closed with so little participation, and I think this needs to be corrected. The article in question makes a good case in point, but nothing more. Rklawton (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a decision that should be made only by administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I shouldn't ask their opinion before bringing it up to a wider audience? Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While ElKevbo is correctly stating the obvious point that such a decision would need to be made by the wider community, there is certainly nothing wrong with raising it here first. Regards Manning (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump, or an RFC. I would wholeheartedly oppose putting a requirement on the amount of discussion - some are obvious and according to policy and really need almost zero discussion (sometimes people AFD something that should have been CSD'd, for example). Of course, NAC should never occur on AFD's with such a mélange of "discussion", should that issue arise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a perennial request that isn't likely to happen. Some articles just don't generate enough interest. Requiring an arbitrary quota of !votes to delete them is just adding layers bureaucracy to the process. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quorum requirements for voting also have the problem that they fail the participation criterion: in the context of AFD, that means you could change the outcome from "no consensus" to "delete" by voting "keep". --Carnildo (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fsol's copyright violations on Libertarianism

Fsol (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk) persists ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) in inserting the following copyright violation into Libertarianism despite warnings. A preventative block may be necessary.

Vallentyne, "is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things" from, Vallentyne, Peter (2002). "Libertarianism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
Your addition, "is the political philosophy that holds individuals initially own themselves and have property rights in external things"
In particular, "own themselves and have ... property rights in external things"

For a user edit warring to insert a claim regarding property rights into a lede by violating copyright is amusing, but the edit warring and persistent copyright violations need to end. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User was notified regarding answer at their talk.

1. A sequence as small as nine words cannot be considered as a copyright infringement. However that is not my judgement to make.

2. In the case and administrator will consider these nine words have a copyright attached to them, then, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we should reformulate the essence of the source. Blatently misquote it by saying the opposite of what it actually says ([10] [11]) is not a solution that abides by Wikipedia guidelines, neither is removing the reference entirely ([12]), as it is an academic and peer-reviewed publications is judges as one of the most reliable sources to come across.Fsol (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in order: nine words, with the same expression, elision of points, and same order is plagiarism of the text itself, it is a copyright violation—you have taken text directly from Vallentyne, and the text you have taken is not a "natural" phrase, but a complex explanation and summary, it is the first sentence from the article. I've had this kind of observation regarding "close" "paraphrase", or verbatim copying as I'd describe it in this instance, in MILHIST's bugle. I've advised FAC on this. I have the habit of spotchecking FACs for precisely this kind of error. Regarding point 2, a close reading of Vallentyne demonstrates that he establishes Libertarianism as a political philosophy (§1¶2), and that the individual is a basic moral principle of society (§0¶2–3, passim). You might also be aware that the tertiary you're citing is a philosophical theory encyclopaedia, is not peer reviewed by the general scholarly community but by an editorial board, and conflicts with other field reviews (per WEIGHT) such as Long (1998) and the magisterial and widely acknowledged Woodcock (1963). Moreover, point 2 fails to address the fact that your proposed (and repeatedly reinserted edit) is a copyright violation because you're taking the words out of Vallentyne's text verbatim. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo - you may want to read WP:QUOTE. This is a nine word phrase, identified as a quote and with proper attribution and a citation. That doesn't come within 1000 miles of a WP:COPYVIO. Manning (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What quotation marks? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misunderstood your original complaint. Regardless, nine words (in a four and five word clause) is not a copyright infringement under any circumstances. If this involved an entire paragraph of text with only token paraphrasing then you might have a marginal case, but this is nothing. WP:PARAPHRASE may be of some use here to get a sense of when the line gets crossed into COPYVIO territory. I assure you, this example is well on the acceptable side. Manning (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manning, your reasoning is spurious. The sentence duplicates the position in the work (first sentence), it duplicates the exact expression, it duplicates the precise reasoning. Source to source the words are not wikipedias, they are Vallentynes. They are directly Vallentynes and are used without quotation, mangled, and under wikipedia's own voice. It is blatant plagiarism as it directly steals the concepts and mode of expression, and as such amounts to a clear copyright violation. Valid paraphrases do not duplicate content, mode of expression, purpose in work, and voice. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is not spurious, it is based on ten years of examining potential copyvios on Wikipedia. You are of course free to disagree with my assessment, but your above stridency has ended my willingness to discuss this any further. Manning (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I am strident, but you appear to be insufficiently versed in plagiarism as copyright violation, and also have a stridency (though, given the conduct of copyright abusers, one which appears to be situationally appropriate). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the interruption, but for the edification of everyone reading this exchange we should note that Manning is correct. We do not consider plagiarism to be copyright infringement, because it isn't. Copyright violation is illegal, plagiarism is unethical. Keegan (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even entirely certain it's plagiarism - when you look at the two short phrases, there is no obvious way of restructuring them that preserves the original meaning, which makes them valid exceptions under WP:PARAPHRASE. IMO assuming the content is valid (an untested assumption) it would still be preferable to quote the original 23 word sentence, and then attribute/cite it correctly. Regardless, there's no copyvio issue here. Manning (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular there and potential copy vio is only one of several problems with that addition. It's not a summary from the article, it's against consensus, and it's against consensus because it is stating a sidebar item as a central tenet. Fsol's only argument for warring it into the lead is that it is sourced. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no copyvio concerns with this specific item. However that does not mean I (or the admin body) endorse (or oppose) its inclusion, and any claims that the admins "approved" this sentence are nonsense. (I'm not saying that will be the case here, but that tactic has been tried before). As a general note, the admin boards are not a place to resolve content disputes. Manning (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just wanted to clarify that a reading on the copy vio is not a reading on the content inclusion question. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prods not expiring?

I'm sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place . . . I really have no idea if this should be on AN or AN/I or somewhere else. Anyway, looking at Category:Proposed deletion there seems to be a lot of pages which have had prod tags for more than 7 days but which aren't in Category:Expired proposed deletions‎. It looks like something isn't working right with the proposed deletion template or whatever it is that makes the prods say they are expired. Calathan (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to a few of the articles that have prods that should have expired, cleared the page cache, and the template changed to show that they were expired. There is something odd going on though. -- Atama頭 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I'm clearing out the backlog but there are dozens of articles. Also nobody was deleting the empty prod categories, I'm not sure if that contributed to this problem, usually an admin zaps them right away. It looks like I might have to get back into the habit of patrolling prods again if other people aren't doing it. -- Atama頭 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template is not working; I wonder if it might be in some way the after effects of the shut-down. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is that the oldest prods currently in play are from 23 January (I just cleared 22 Jan), long after the shutdown. {{Proposed deletion/dated}} calls for Template:Category handler, which adds the expired PROD category; is there something going on with that template, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doggedly going through these prods, and I've cleared out tons but can't keep up. I cleared out everything proposed up through the 24th, but many prods from the 25th are still there and they have all expired by this point, and now prods from the 26th are going to start expiring. I could use a bit more help if anyone is interested. :) Just make sure, if you aren't familiar with prods, that you look over the criteria before deleting (that it hasn't been deleted and restored before and that it hasn't survived AfD or a previous prod). I also look at the articles' talk pages, sometimes people who object to deletion don't know that they can just remove the tag unlike a CSD or AfD tag and will protest deletion there (any objection to deletion makes the deletion controversial and the prod invalid). -- Atama頭 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an issue with the job queue. I did a null edit on one and it appeared in the list. The page linked to from Special:Statistics to view the size of the queue appears to be broken so I could not check the stats. This does point in the direction of a technical issue that needs to be reported to those who actually run the system/code. I don't think this is associated with the toolserver, but there have been issues there of late. Just remember, this is just a hunch. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same thing happen with BLPPRODs occasionally; it usually resolves itself fairly quickly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this issue is related to the thread at WP:ANI about the user who accidentally created a page with the prefix for the Turkish Wikipedia? Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can probably tell from the redlink above, everything from the 25th is now gone, and if the 26th gets cleared out during the day we won't be backlogged on prods anymore. :) -- Atama頭 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The backlog is now cleared, as of this moment all expired proposed deletions are dealt with. It looks like the initial issue is now resolved. -- Atama頭 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move String quartet No. 14 (Schubert)

User DavidRF pointed out, quite correctly, that this title should have a capital Q, to make it the same as all the other titles of string quartet articles. However, when I try to move it from "String quartet..." to "String Quartet..." Mr. Wiki tells me that the article already exists. Can someone fix this problem for me? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 28bytes (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel List of past General Hospital characters additional opinions

There is a request for revdel due to copyright violations for List of past General Hospital characters - after a brief discussion here - which notes the central issues to this request (which started here), I thought it best to get some additional opinions given it's revdelling almost the entire edit history. Thanks in advance for your sage insights. Skier Dude (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-blacklist

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist has requests dating back to December, which I don't think have been actioned. Could someone please take a look. Cheers. Chzz ► 10:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting; was archived without response on 31 Jan [13] Chzz ► 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bump Chzz ► 13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

The Dissociative identity disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (henceforth DID) talk page has been a horrible, slogging mess for a good two weeks now, so there's a lot of text if anyone wants to read it and external input is both needed and requested, but this is a much more focussed issue. Tomcloyd (talk · contribs) recently posted a lengthy section on the talk page aimed at individuals with DID (some minor copyedits as well). I removed it as soapboxing that was irrelevant to improving the page itself. Tom then replaced it, and it was removed again by Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs). Well, it has since been replaced as part of a new section - Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#If you have DID, this may not be a safe place for you, but it should be. I see this as a pretty clear and inappropriate misuse of the talk page based on a very specific personal (and professional) point of view of a couple editors. Within the scientific literature there is a pretty clear and bitter dispute between those who think DID is caused by significant trauma in childhood, and those who think that it is produced by bad therapy in adults (henceforth traumagenic and sociocognitive hypotheses respectively). I've been consistently pointing out that there are many reliable sources for both positions and therefore both sides should be included in the article, to editors who fall strongly on both sides of the debate. This lengthy talk page posting includes a section ("Signatories") where editors offer to be contact points for the article, which could be an invitation to meatpuppet (or not). Either way, it seems a fairly clear inappropriate use of the talk page.

Though I would welcome outside input and involvement on the page, my specific question for admins and community at large would be the appropriateness of this section of the talk page. As far as actual edits to the main page, they're surprisingly minimal and the main page has only been locked down once for 3 days (and for a stupid reason utterly unrelated to the traumagenic/sociocognitive hypotheses). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Highly inappropriate for a talkpage or elsewhere. Equating disagreement with holocaust denial and calling opponents sociopaths is textbook battleground behavior. I propose a topic ban from DID articles, broadly construed. Skinwalker (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section is the point of view of some editors. The point of views of every editor involved in the recent content disputes and discussion is clearly available for all to see on the talk page. The section was created as a response to the perceived bullying (by, among others, WLU); it may not be the perfect solution, but I feel its current existence as part of the talk page is warranted. After some of the content disputes are resolved, and (more importantly) after discussion becomes more civil and accessible as a whole, the section may outlive its usefulness. My point here is not to accuse or condemn WLU, but simply to point out that there are several different sides to this issue which warrant a much closer examination and no hasty decisions. —danhash (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please come and help. However WLU's behavior is already being looked at. Please contact Salvio Giuliano and see this page for more information~ty (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a rudimentary google search shows recent off-site canvassing for the pro-DID faction.[14] Skinwalker (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the most recent timestamp in that discussion - Jan 23rd, then 21st, then 15th - and given Tylas' newness, I don't think this is a deliberate violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. The only new account on the DID talk page is Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs) and he has an opinion diametrically opposite that of Tylas and Tomcloyd. In my opinion, meatpuppeting isn't an issue, and I will leave a note on Tylas' talk page indicating this sort of thing isn't a good idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to extend good faith to new editors who may not understand this tactic is not acceptable. I'm more concerned that TomCloyd - who is not only a seasoned editor but a Wikipedia Regional Ambassador - thinks that activism, namecalling, and flagrant violations of Godwin's Law are appropriate ways to resolve a content dispute. Juice L's behavior seems to have been quite unhelpful as well. Skinwalker (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, during the last few weeks, Tom's been using a lot of words like sociopath, holocaust denial, bullies, abuse, and victimizing. I don't expect this kind of persistent personal attack from any editor, much less from one who says he's a mental health professional. I've never seen such inflammatory comments about contributors resolve a content dispute; have any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been posting to the talk page occasionally after a notice at WT:MED a few days ago. I've not edited the article and have no interest in doing so.

The dispute is your average, basic appalling mess. Basically, we have a "true believer" of a mental health professional(?), who wants Wikipedia to reflect what he tells his clients, versus WLU, who wants the article reflect the non-trivial skepticism present in the academic literature. And we have just enough additional inexperienced folks (including one or two people who have been labeled with this condition) involved that the talk page is long and chaotic. We've already had multiple explanations of basic things, like the important difference between a psychiatry textbook and an advocacy website and the fact that Wikipedia articles follow the MOS rather than our old English teacher's idea of a proper outline, but the bigger, and probably unsolvable, problem seems to be that the DID proponents really, really, really need this article to minimize any skepticism about this condition (which, whatever its cause or its proper classification, does produce significant suffering for the affected people). I begin to see the appeal of a "block 'em all" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried to delete the section by Tom Cloyd in the talk page that deals with the hardships of DID-persons who tries to edit the article. It is totally inappropriate for it to be on the talk page. If he want to have it on his own userpage then I have no issues with that at all. It also likens anyone who doesn't believe his world view to holocaust deniers. My removal was immediately reverted, so rather than edit-warr over it, I come here hoping that I am not the only one who thinks that it should be removed. This is the section I'm talking about: [15] Juice Leskinen 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is apparent to anyone who looks through the page history (which I assume any administrator taking action would do), Juice was very intent on keeping his name attached to this section (and apparently wanted his name at the top of the list of "Signatories" as well). —danhash (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danhash, does that mean the section is appropriate for the talk page, per the talk page guidelines? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was not that the section is appropriate for the talk page per the guidelines; my statement made no indication one way or the other as to the validity of the section. I was simply pointing out some facts for context's sake about Juice's apparently duplicitous actions. When involving previously uninvolved parties in an already-heated, lengthy discussion, it is often easy, at least at first, to see the first arguments you are presented with as reasonable and the opposite arguments as unreasonable. It is extremely obvious that Juice's actions were not in good faith to absolutely anyone who chooses to examine the editor (or even just the page history), but the page history is so long and is growing at such a rapid pace that I thought it would be helpful to make a comment bringing to light the fact that Juice was arguing against a section he fought very hard to (deceptively) include himself in. —danhash (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please would an uninvolved editor immediately remove section If you have DID and are editing this article or this Talk page - please read this as an obvious and unhelpful violation of WP:TPG, for example, as was done in this edit (which was immediately reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. Given the obnoxious comparison to holocaust denial, and the blatant soapboxing, it looks a slam-dunk violation of not only WP:TPG but WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and basic common sense. REgardless of the righs and wrongs of the issue (of which I know relatively little), that isn't the way to achieve 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now we just need to hose down the talk page for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Andy, who are you, and why should I not revert? I can see you have opinions, although I see no support for them. We've had a lot of that at the DID article. Not exactly impressive, and hardly defensible, either. If you're an admin., make that clear, so we (I) know what's going on. I came to the DID article some days ago, hoping to improve the article. I have found that to be utterly impossible. The ruling clique there have no interest in this, and they are getting away with it. Wikipedia's reputation is not exactly burnished by this fact.

As for achieving consensus, the DID deniers and POV pushers at the article, who are quite willing for the article NOT to present the actual view of my profession, have NO interest in any consensus but the one that results after they run off the vulnerable and those who actually work professionally with DID. I am such a person, and I do not have all day to disagree about single words, to type responses to endless digressions, and to generally wear every one out. Consensus is not about to occur at the DID article, not on anything important, I assure you. WLU alone will see to that.

Let me tell you a story. One of my DID clients was raped repeatedly by her father from ages 6 through about 11 (her memory strangely isn't very good for the exact ages of these rapes). She would fight back, but her father held her down and raped her, again and again - sometimes several times a week. If necessary, he beat her first. When she finally told her mother, she was beaten for lying. When she told people at the school she went to, the family left town - this happened several times. While you may not appreciate this, here is what I know: during the period of time her sense of self SHOULD have been developing, she was in effect carpet bombed by sustained periods of intense fear, as well as intense physical pain. Do you know what happens when a grown man rapes a young girl? Would you like me to paint a more graphic picture? No? Well, she had no such choice. Neither do I when I'm with her. This is about reality, not damned policy statements. No one came to her rescue. No one believed her, when she asked for help.

Her developing sense of self was blown into over a hundred pieces, and has stayed that way for a number of decades. She has parts of self today which show up in my consulting room and function more or less normally, and parts which simply cower and whimper as if they were being beaten, and parts that scream and cry about how it hurts "down there". Would you like to join me in my consulting room to watch this? If you did, you'd understand why I call this a "holocaust of the self". Are you beginning to get the picture? Maybe you also see why my description of some of the editors at the DID article as "personal holocaust deniers" is dead center correct. In point of fact, NO words I can come up will adequately convey the horror of this woman's story, much lise my disgust at encountering editors who glibly want to tell her (as one editor plainly has one editor with DID) that a therapist "manufactured" (my word) her DID. That's just obscene. This is what is happening while people here are fussing about my use of the word holocaust. That just defies credulity.

Ignorant people who argue that there DID such as hers can be faked, or created by someone (that's never been done, in truth), are exceptionally hurtful to people like this woman, who come to the DID article hoping for useful information, and hoping that their family might learn something useful about them which they are unable to impart - and finding a number of people quite willing to suggest to them that their daily pain is a fiction, an artifact of evil or unskilled therapists.

If you do not care about the two individuals with DID who managed to figure out how to contact me this past week, and who were gravely distressed because of the hostility and dishonesty on full display on the Talk page, concerning the reality of DID, be clear about it. Say "We have no place for such people at Wikipedia. We don't care for your pain. Take it somewhere else. We're serious Wikipedia editors. We don't have time for whiny women and their improbable stories."

I am sick to death of people who should know better, who at least should approach this subject with some humility, and maybe go through 1/10 of the effort I've gone through just to understand what in hell is happening with a person with DID, not to mention what to do with it. There should be no place at Wikipedia for them. None. This is freedom run amok.

There is a group of people editing the DID article who are quite obviously preventing constructive development of the article, and who are also manifestly hurting emotionally vulnerable individuals who SHOULD have access to the editorial process (THAT is the accessibility issue I have raised). Exactly what part of this do you not understand? If the damned rules say we cannot address this problem, and that there is no place at Wikipedia where we get conspicuously to care about these people, and to try to find a way to include them, then the damned rules are wrong. I shouldn't have to tell you this: the "rules" at Wikipedia are not that important; it's in the P&G, and you know that. Care to ask Sue Gardner which matters more - rules or people? She's female. She very likely gets it what it means to be a minority female in a male dominated world (that's the editorial world at Wikipedia I'm referring to). Go ahead - ask her. I never have, but I'm quite comfortable betting on her answer.

So what's it going to be? Exactly how big a man are you? You can support the people whose behavior is socipathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them), or you can work for a Wikipedia that is humane, and makes a place for all. What's it going to be? Rules or people? In my world, real men defend the weak, and make a place for all, knowing that diversity breeds strength. Ignorant people defend people whose behavior is quite correctly characterized as sociopathic.

If we don't take this issue up on the Talk page, where everyone actually IS, where do we take it up? Having removed my statement, we now have nothing to discuss. People won't see it. Now THAT's a sure fire consensus building method.

OK...you have the floor. Let's see what you can do.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. And neither have I defended 'sociopaths' (though as individuals with severe psychological disorders they surely deserve defending, in the same way that others do). What I have 'defended' is a basic principle from the distant past of Wikipedia - that it is possible to disagree fundamentally with another editor without implying that he or she is an agent of Beelzebub. If you are incapable of accepting this, you are probably best advised to pursue your cause elsewhere. I have nothing more to say on the matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just got home and read the DID page - and as usual, nothing is getting done. So many editors seem to be focused on deleting things on the talk page or correcting English or whatever, but those are minor issues. We have a major roadblock to overcome first - simply being allowed to edit the DID page without WLU reverting and stopping us. I am considered a new editor, even though I joined WP and edited a few things a few years ago ( think it was. I have not looked at the actual dates). My introduction to Wikipedia on the DID page has been a nightmare. I have been sworn at, bullied, looked up off Wikipedia and more. I don't know how anyone could stay and work in that environment - in fact not many have. One must agree with WLU, or nothing will get done. (Sorry, WLU, but it's true. I don't want to say these things, but I want to work on the article.) I want to thank Tom Cloyd for standing up for those of us that have DID. We really don't need to feel attacked just for trying to improve a WP article. It should not be so difficult to work on a page. ~ty (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Grump - I can see how this can be confusing, but this is how I read the problem addressed above: Mr. Cloyd said" "behavior is sociopathic (that is, they hurt people, and don't care, when it's pointed out to them)" We all have some sociopathic tendencies, it's just how far we go on a scale measuring those tendencies. It is not antisocial personality disorder which is what I think you are calling a sociopath. We are getting off track again. This is far from our main issue on the DID page. ~ty (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the "why should I not revert?" question: because the section removed from the talk page is wholly inappropriate for a talk page at Wikipedia. The guideline is at WP:TPG but the stronger fact is that talk pages just do not do that. The removed section is visible in this permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To close a sort of a circle, I've raised the accessibility issue (i.e. if WP:ACCESSIBILITY covers emotionally hostile talk pages) at the project and pointed the discussion here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban for Tom Cloyd

It is abundantly clear to me, in reading this section and the article's talk page, that Tom Cloyd is powerfully emotionally involved in the issue of DID, and that for exactly that reason, he is not equipped to edit collegially on the article or its talk page. It is not, and will never be, appropriate to use articles to POV push, to use talk pages to post partisan screeds, or to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to shout about how you feel one group is victimising another. That's simply not ok. Wikipedia is neither medical advice nor therapy, and we provide information about medical conditions, not encouragement to patients, or judgment about those who question/support the condition. It's apparent to me that Tom Cloyd is unable to accept these facts, and that he feels very strongly that our article and its talk should be a source of therapy or advocacy. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban for tomcloyd (talk · contribs) from Dissociative identity disorder and its talk page. Said ban may be lifted by the community upon Tom's convincingly explaining how he intends to edit according to our neutrality and battleground policies, and his accepting that Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the Point Ms. Nutter - The whole problem is that no progress can be made on the DID page. WLU keeps us on the talk page, busy - not allowing progress and arguing every point. He would like the page to remain as it was before this group of new editors arrived and he is outstanding at this. Most humans would be frustrated and give up. Many, in fact, have ran from the page in frustration - stating this is the reason. Tom is simply, out of frustration with WLU, trying to find ways to allow those who would like to contribute to the page to do so. WLU is as strongly passionate about keeping the page as it was before this group came as Tom Cloyd is about helping those with DID to be able to edit the page without being so bullied. I think you are totally off base with this proposal. You have not dug in and watched the problem from the start like I have. You are ranting about something you have not looked into at all. You are just taking one thing from this page and making a blind judgement about the whole problem. I am sorry to argue with you, but please do not judge before looking into the entire matter.~ty (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best, Tylas, if you did not accuse other editors of "ranting" or making "blind judgments" without acquainting themselves with the case. These can be construed as personal attacks, and do not help convince anyone that the article is not being subjected to emotionally-charged, rather than neutral, editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Ms. Nutter. That was not my intent. :( ~ty (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with Tylas' interpretation of your ban proposal. More below. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban, as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This behavior is completely unacceptable. Skinwalker (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support When this was brought up at WP:FTN I came to the article to take a look, but the massive walls of text on the talk page as well as the intense emotional climate makes it difficult to even figure out what is going on. Some time away from the article to cool off would be ideal. eldamorie (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An indef topic ban isn't necessary for a simple "cooling off period". —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but emphasis support for the ban being repealed if Tom demonstrates an appreciation for how NPOV actually plays out. Despite numerous uninvolved editors providing comments, they are never good enough. Unlike everyone else on the talk page, whose behaviour appears to be improving, Tom's appears to be degrading. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As part of "everyone else" you forgot Juice, who should be one of the first to be blocked or banned if anyone at all is. You have seen[16] just like everyone else his inappropriate behavior. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that given the gravity of this discussion, I've alerted Tom via talk page and e-mail about this new sub-section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WLU. I should have done that as soon as I started this section, but it slipped my mind. Apologies all around :S A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I give. You win WLU. I am gone. ~ty (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you will give Tom ample time to formulate a response before indef topic banning him. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant support per 1) the obviously inappropriate and emotionally involved SOAPBOX post from Tom Cloyd at 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) above, 2) including his appeal to Sue Gardner (who isn't an experienced editor anyway, and he should have appealed to WP:MEDRS and WP:COI instead of the irrelevant authority of an inexperienced medical editor), and 3) the analysis by WhatamIdoing above at 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC). This appears to be a most unfortunate case of a "true believer" with a COI, unable to separate individual clients' experiences from the necessarily objective approach to encyclopedic editing based on reliable medical sources. WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here, and for the article to advance, the talk page needs to focus on sources, not people. I should disclose that I have previous experience working with WLU on medical articles, and I know he does that. The reason I'm "reluctant" is that it's unfortunate that very few psych articles on Wikipedia can advance, precisely for these reasons (psych professionals engage them, disregarding our policies, and using Wikipedia to further their own interests). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – Tom seems to be the only current editor of the article who really has adequate experience and knowledge of the whole subject at hand. It would not be correct to just pop by the DID talk page, read up on the last few days, and then make a judgement that he is not fit for editing the article or talk page. He is knowledgeable about DID and has personal experience in dealing with it, of course he will have his own point of view—everyone else has their own point of view too. It seems as though most of the times he has made a substantive, thought out, well rounded post (which of course would be somewhat long; the length of his replies is entirely appropriate), others are quick to respond to one or two simple points that he has made, ignoring oftentimes the main point of his arguments. Tom has tried for quite a while now to combat the attitude held by some (seemingly at least 3) of the editors on the DID page of being oppositional for oppositional's sake, or else just plain biased. Tom has his point of view as does every editor, but he explains himself and is willing to engage in discussion—to the contrary of some of the editors with opposing viewpoints. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – I am walking away from WP and of course the DID page, but I wanted announce my strong, strong, strong, strong opposition to this motion. My reasons are listed in the above text.~ty (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - It is not Tom who is keeping the page at a standstill - it is the lack of actually substantive edits and fighting about everything all at once instead of one thing at a time. I believe Tom, tylas, myself, WLU and most of the other editors just coming in or playing a more minor role can work together but this is not a battleground for sure and the fate of the world does not hinge on the DID article page. I agree that Tom needs to stop the soapboxing. But he knows a ton about the field and has good information and sources - it is a communication problem that can be worked out without blocking (and definitely not indefinite blocking) and Tom is not the only one who has been causing it. Takes two (or in this case many) to tango. This might stop the problem temporarily but at the same time will stop improvements to the article - and there have been a few things that have gotten done in the past few weeks even though no one can tell because of the insane talk page. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But something to consider FF, is whether Tom is willing to abide by the policies and guidelines that underscore a successful editor on wikipedia and the project as a whole. That includes things like WP:CIVIL (which [17] [18] [19]), overall compliance with the P&G ([20], [21], [22], idiosyncratic understanding of issues such as the use of the accessbility tag [23], the role of WP:MEDRS [24], WP:MOS#ATTRIBUTION [25], WP:CONSENSUS [26] [27], claims that specific policies don't apply such as WP:NOR [28], WP:NPOV [29] [30] [31] [32], wikilawyering over the meaning of policies [33] and of course the obvious misuse of the talk page that was my initial post here. Then there's generally irksom comments that others lacking postgraduate training are essentially too stupid to understand why his way is better [34] [35] [36] [37], [38], or that because he treats DID he is correct on wikipedia [39]. Keep in mind, I stopped looking January 24th, and these issues have gotten worse, not better, over the past two weeks. Everybody is bound by the P&G, you don't get to ignore them or pick your preferred version because you think you are right. Everybody thinks they are right, but they need to demonstrate it using reliable sources - and you don't get to discount a source because you disagree with it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think things are beyond salvageable. A lot of people have thrown insults around in the past week or two related to the article, accusations of bad faith and POV pushing and threats etc. Almost everyone involved has done some or all of these things in fact - including you, WLU, though I agree everyone's behavior is improving (but I'd include Tom in that). But I'm not arguing about any of that or trying to blame anyone - we are obviously all passionate about this topic - and I do think things need to change but I see hopes of it happening since the article was locked down earlier this week. Sticking with oppose. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page headers as dispute "resolution" venue instead of RfC/U participation

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

– The RFC has just been re-opened, let's keep combersation in one place. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that today another user with a suspended RfC/U has returned. Shakehandsman ~~has refused to engage with the RfC/U~~ declared it harassment and disappeared from Wikipedia for a month. After his return, he vents on his talk page header with various accusations and gloating against other users. [40]. Without prejudging the merit of the RfC/U on him, Shakehandsman's method of dispute "resolution" still seems inappropriate. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you've properly considered your own method of dispute resolution? If you have an issue with an editor the usual thing is to approach them directly about it on their user page. Exok (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I observed that as well, and I chose to discuss it with them personally. It's usually a good first step before proceeding to the drama boards. He has alrady modified he remarks somewhat as a result. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words Exok, thanks. For the record there is no gloating nor any resolution, I've simply explained clearly my reasons for returning and stated my position, providing evidence that vindicates me. It's undeniable that I have been subject to significant harassment and various other unpleasantness on Wikipedia and despite there being no case to answer I did previously thoroughly engage with the RFC/U thoroughly debunking all 13 points of "evidence" that were provided (and i was even interupted in doing so by users posting in an area reserved exclusively for my comments). The header is simply a temporary update to my notice of departure and I'll move it lower down the page if it really offends people and I have already tweaked one sentence that I realise could potentially have been misinterpreted. TBH it would have been nice if a fraction of this level of concern had been given to the blatantly false comments and bad faith littered throughout the RFC/U - a page that must have had vastly more views than my talk.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on your engagement in the RfC/U. However, I don't think that this is enough to address the concern that you are using your talk page header inappropriately per WP:UP#POLEMIC. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here's the link to the previous AN discussion about said RfC/U: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive230#RFC/U needs examining. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-opened the RFC per your request, let's take this and all related matters up there. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232

WP:SNOW. Swarm ^X 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from ANI. Nobody Ent 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of ongoing disruption from the user formerly known as User:Rlevse, including returning to the project apparently multiple times since exercising RTV under a cloud, continuing old grudges, abusing if not the letter then the spirit of the sockpuppetry policy, and apparently engaging in many other disruptions that have been kept secret from the community, I'm proposing a community ban for User:Vanished 6551232, formerly User:Rlevse. The other thread which details this abuse is here [41] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is moot as to Rlevse/Vanished 6551232/PumpkinSky/etc, which have been blocked, and is not ripe for discussion as to any future incarnation of Rlevse. Should he seek at some future time to return, that would be the time and place for such a discussion. This is supposed to be a forum for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" (Emphasis added). There is no plausible basis for concluding that intervention is required at this time. Fladrif (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, he initiated RTV. He was not indefinitely blocked. There was nothing preventing him from ever coming back to Wikipedia. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rlevse/Vanished account is blocked. The PumpkinSky account is blocked. Your are confusing blocks and bans. I never said he was banned. But it is a simple fact that those accounts are currently blocked (in the first instance because Rlevse requested courtesy RTV and then continued to edit from the Vanished account) and no-one has asked that they be unblocked.Fladrif (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strong oppose No. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Absolutely not. There is no behavior warranting a community ban. I am so sick of this. Every time an issue like this comes up on AN/I, the very first "solution" is a community ban. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Really? Every time? Seems like the previous solution was to allow him RTV, which he then abused multiple times. How else do you propose we prevent his continued returning and disrupting the project? Oh, let him vanish again, but this time he really will! Right. Just more typical Wikipedia bias, otherwise known as special rules for special people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Nothing was done that deserves a community ban. One sockpuppet is not cause for a community ban—if that were the case, we'd better go ban several of our best editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ one sockpuppet. If that were all then I would never have proposed a ban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does Category:Suspected wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse turn up empty, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rlevse is a redlink, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse only contains User:PumpkinSky? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody tagged the socks? Because admins want to hide his abuses? And did you miss the entire episode regarding his other abuses? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged what socks? You normally seem like a sensible editor, but claiming an admin conspiracy is a very poor substitute for providing diffs and actual evidence when you make a ban proposal. List these socks, or link to them, or something. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from the previous thread:

Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I saw. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only other sockpuppet that Rlevse supposedly had (that I know of) was BarkingMoon (talk · contribs). However, no evidence was ever presented that BarkingMoon == Rlevse, so the sole accomplishment was that BarkingMoon left the project in disgust. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'd be more inclined by a large margin to facilitate Rlevse's return to active editing under a failed RTV. My76Strat (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know the negative history of Rlevse, just had good experiences with the user. But I saw nothing troubling enough for anything more than a warning wrt the Pking account. None of the diffs I looked at in the above discussion were overly troubling. If you're going to propose a ban, you need a lot more than waving at a discussion. Can someone provide diffs that they think justify this ban? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per My76Strat (ec), same inclination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Used to be an excellent user, not only doing good work but also encouraging others by handing out well designed awards. No justification for a perma ban. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A serial plagiarist who keeps returning to perpetuate grudges against other editors? Very useful. This project is hopeless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went into details about his plagiarism today, s. Paraphrase but how, there is danger for the project, he copied the line "and was designated a State Natural Area in 1986", copied word-for-word from the source!!! (sarcasm intended), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)

And a former ArbCom member! You have to have a sense of humor or this place will drive you crazy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, and the snow close is imminent. That's fine, close this then and I'll go back to my coffee and NPP. Beating one's head against walls give one headaches. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My76Strat has the right idea: Rlevse clearly wants to still be here, he's failed at RTV several times, and he'd be better off to return to the Rlevse account, subject to some guidance, and staying away from DYK and FAC. He can learn to paraphrase, and if he checks his old grudges at the door, and stays away from his weak spot (which is DYK and its inherent copyvio problems) he should be able to return successfully-- there would be many eyes on him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we don't need this. Enough. Keep him indeff'd at least. (That is now revdel'd-- it was an extensive post of private email. Anyone wonder who leaked the arb-list now?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per sandy --Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was still trying to finish when the thread was moved :) I'd be more inclined to say that should Rlevse return, he should be under some guidance, and should be required to stay away from DYK and FAC until the community feels that he is able to understand correct paraphrasing and check his grudges at the door. Although requiring them never works, an apology from Rlevse to Raul654 would be a good start, too-- giving an indication that he understands where he went wrong and how much damaged that caused. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Struck per this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much better proposal. However, Rlevse should pick which account he wants to use and stick with that one, so that people can watch for any introduction of close paraphrasing. He does a lot of good work referencing and contributing to articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whichever account he picks isn't an issue. But ... ummmm, well ... he also has problems recognizing and understanding reliable sources, which is one of the other reasons I'd prefer he not go back to DYK until he's gained a better understanding in that area as well. He wants to contribute and can make worthy contributions, but unfortunately, his personal weaknesses coincide with the general weaknesses at DYK, and he tends to become very forceful there, which helps preserve the status quo. On the other hand, if Montanabw and others can work with him on articles, he could improve in those areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per this. Keep him indeff'd at least. Last chance too many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rlevese has been a good, and long-time positive contributor. I support dealing with the concerning issues so he can return to productive editing.(olive (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose He's been a productive editor, we have too few, end of story. I agree with what Sandy said in her comment of 17:17--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My76Strat has it about right, but the grudge matches do need to be left at the door. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Please check out the copyright investigation, which is proceeding quickly, and is finding practically nothing. My opinion: if the user wishes to return, he has to resume using his original account (the Rlevse account). --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let him keep his new name, if he likes it better. Wasn't someone going to reach out to him last night?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; the name does not matter as long as everyone is aware. I will put a message on user talk:PumpkinSky right now. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an admin could snow close this? Nobody Ent 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can give everyone involved a chance to weigh in, and be sure that consensus has formed? For example, do ya think Raul might have an opinion here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per My76Strat and SandyGeorgia. — Ched : ? 17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As long as the Rlevese history is attached to whatever account he intends using, I don't see a problem here. He chose to vanish and should be allowed to unvanish, if that's what he wants. --regentspark (comment) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - BarkingMoon is PumkinSky, PSky was created two days after his BMoon account was exposed, and they are both sockpuppets of the serial copyright violator User:Rlevse. He had and has no intention of assisting in resolving those issues and his latest sockpuppet has now created a load more work - he returns and attacks users from previous disputes - There are additional issues with this user as Will Beback mentioned - I have an additional complaint that I will leave as historic. Arbcom know more than they are saying - any support for the user is misguided to say the least. I realise there are users against this but later I will be happy I said it. Youreallycan 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since there are other issues (including one that is important to me, a failure to fully understand WP:V, a core policy), I haven't entered my comments here as either a Support or Oppose-- just a way forward if there is consensus for such. And if he were to return without some sort of guidance, restrictions, and oversight, I would certainly not be in favor. I-- finally-- have completely lost trust in the ability of some of our illustrious arbs to be impartial. Again, while apologies can't be required and are rarely helpful, in this case, one might give an indication that he understands all that he caused and won't do it again. Without that understanding, troubled editors rarely turn into productive ones, and just move into more and more problematic socking-- something we should seek to avoid here if we can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck, having seen an extensive private email posted by Rlevse/PumpkinSky before it was revdel'd ~~and oversighted~~-- no. Just no. Keep him indeff'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and in choosing to support "facilitation" I do mean to imply incorporating everything else that is prudent. My76Strat (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Looking at the CCI, the problems there are a few close paraphrases (and not egregious ones either - he is trying to properly paraphrase. He mostly seems to miss the point about copying structure, which isn't always easy to grasp). A lot of quality gnomish edits are apparent in that report. I'm not sure that any of his recent stuff would meet the legal definition of "copyright violation". I'm mostly ignorant about the earlier account, I wasn't really around then. Re: YouReallyCan above: if there's something about past behaviour that isn't being mentioned, it probably should. There seems to be a consensus from the Featured people that his contribs to discussions there weren't helpful, he should probably stay away from that area. If he needs help properly paraphrasing things, he needs to ask for help. Lots of good writers at DYK/GA/FA who would be willing to rework drafts for him. The account-hopping wasn't right, and he needs to acknowledge that. The Interior (Talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make return conditional on helping with the CCIs. Per the recent measures against two other editors, the former Arb needs to pitch in to help solve the problems he created. There are now two CCIs: one for the original account and one for PumpkinSky. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Grossly excessive. Prioryman (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Rlevse/PumpkinSky is a positive contributor, a good, solid editor, and once the CCI on the Pumpkin Sky account is done, he will be one of the most closely scrutinized editors ever. I'd challenge ANY other editor to not have the occasional close paraphrase in their collected contributions and have the nearly 800 articles analyzed that is happening at the CCI. (And to help when you have a hard time seeing close paraphrasing is a bit awk, don't you think?) Frankly, though this individual has some spats with other editors, it's just the usual wiki-drama and snark -- his tone is really small potatoes compared to some of the really nasty vicious bullying attacks I've seen from trolls that no one ever seems to block. I think that he gets dogpiled on because once things get to a certain point, he chooses to not engage any longer. Some people are that way, but it's not an admission of guilt, it's just a throwing up of hands. I say allow a quasi clean start with a new user name so the red flags don't immediately spring up -- though maybe with doppleganger notes on the other pages for those who care. The sockpuppeting was, IMHO, consistent with his personality, which clearly is to avoid certain types of engagement and given that the initial reason Rlevse left was over a tempest in a teapot, I'd say that the sockpuppet concerns should be viewed as a RTV gone awry, and tossed as Fruit of the poisonous tree provided that he henceforth edits openly. Raul, I don't know you and I am sure you are probably a nice person who just disagrees with Rlevse, and the disagreements are not comfortable, but what little I looked at was just the usual wiki-drama, I've personally endured much more vicious attacks on wiki from people no one ever blocked (wish they would have, but oh well...). Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you in spirit, but I do need to point out that you don't seem to have followed his entry into the FAC situation, which does not fit this description at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sandy said it well. I do not, however, subscribe to the storm-in-a-teapot metaphor, Montana. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; support indefinite block until editor has agreed to conditions and addressed past issues. --Rs chen 7754 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As per Montanabw and further , WP:RTV issue is not yet resolved.Actually it is being discussed in Village Pump .There is no clear policy yet that a user who returns after WP:RTV under a new name will be blocked indef for socking.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Rlevse is going to edit here he needs to do so transparently. My impression is that some editors here are unaware of the extent of deceitfulness and subterfuge in which Rlevse engaged under his original account. So long as Rlevse is retired/vanished/inactive there's no harm in allowing his positive contributions to be remembered foremost. But if he is active then the full history of his editing and bureaucratic activity needs to be discussed. I am very concerned that he may intend to regain positions of trust. Will Beback talk 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will Beback here. There are appropriate second chances, and there are wise decisions that acknowledge second chances have been spent. I do not know the extent of Rlevse's copyvio problems, but the fact that he refused to address them, then lashed out at Wikipedians, leaving with a dramatic and immediate exit, instead of acknowledging there was some kind of issue to be dealt with is problematic. What's worse is that he created PumpkinSky to antagonize some editors and engage others, like Giano, for unknown reasons. This is an ex-ArbCom member who ruled on the impropriety of just this kind of behavior, ending in the blocks of others, so arguing that he didn't know what he was doing is ridiculous. If Rlevse wanted to return so he could edit articles of interest, he would have done so without calling so much attention to his abrasiveness and inability to communicate in a meaningful way. RTV is too often abused by editors with significant problems who return without addressing those problems. I keep seeing this Wikipedia-is-a-workplace argument for civility, but there is no real-life situation in which someone leaves a place of employment and can return without anyone else noticing, just to irritate the folks with whom he disagreed in the past. Surely the manager who allowed that would himself be fired. I don't have a problem with an editor returning if s/he intends to work not only on articles but his own issues that forced the RTV in the first place, but what's left to respect of Rlevse? How long until he regains his admin status and runs for ArbCom again with half of Wikipedia reminding all not to be so judgmental, and the other half righteously indignant or so far beyond caring about such a negligent system that creates this circumstance that they just are editing drunk all the time? --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the reasons for this are clear, and have been well-stated by others. Collect (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as one of the people now working both CCIs, All I can say is that I want EVERY ONE OF YOU on this thread to please to go over there and help, seeing as how you started this in the first place. There are something like 1,800 articles now on the two lists and will be more if you add Barking Moon. If everyone agrees to review even one each of the major ones and 5-10 of the little ones, it would be a huge help. But please, also ask if your edits from five years ago were all perfect too, OK? We probably have 10 wiki-gnoming and cleanup edits to every substantive one. The stuff on Rlevse going back to 2005 or 2006 is simply a huge pain in the butt to review, many articles have changed substantially, other, smaller ones less so, and of the couple I've found that have some question, they are so close to the line that I can't see any way to phrase it all that differently, personally, and asked others to peek and see. Frankly, I'm starting to worry about editing anything myself -- I get jumped on for OR if I write stuff I know, then find sources, but if I read it first, how can my mind not be "contaminated" by the phrasing? At the level we are scrutinizing Rlevse on close paraphrasing (and still, few problems, probably no worse than most of us with a long edit history), we may wind up deleting half the encyclopedia if we applied it rigidly across the board to all articles -- heck 3/4 of the encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, who are you referring to with "seeing as how you started this in the first place"? Amalthea started the CCI, knew about it before even the arbs, and actually, to date, none of us know how Amalthea came to realize that PumpkinSky was Rlevse. If you want to point at some who contributed to this, perhaps the people who should be doing the cleanup are all the DYk regulars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BarkingMoon sock tagging

Related to the above section about Rlevse, Gerda Arendt has pointed out to me that User:Raul654 has just tagged User:BarkingMoon as a sock of Rlevse. Has it been established that this is the case? 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was some suspicions that he was, but there was no solid evidence. In his departure statement, BarkingMoon vehemently stated that he was not Rlvese. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must have missed it when they changed policy so that we just take a suspected sockpuppet's word that he's not a sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That principle was established in 2010: [42] [43] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that denies that BarkingMoon is not a quacking gaggle of quackers clearly does not want to accept the obvious for some unexplained reason - Youreallycan 18:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barkingmoon left and two days later Pumpkinsky (who admits he is Rlevse) appeared. That's hardly a coincidence. According to an arbitrator, Rlevse admitted that Barkingmoon was "associated" with him. Raul654 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So file an wp:spi. Nobody Ent 18:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The people that know already know - its so obvious as to not need a SPI - Tag him or not - thats also by the bye. Youreallycan 19:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI was already filed. The arbitration committee refused to comment on the Barkingmoon-Rlevse connection at the time. Asked about this today, they said the evidence was inconclusive (there was some supporting it and some against it) and that we should rely upon behavioral evidence, which (in this case) is pretty clear-cut. Raul654 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been an SPI; per that and the discussion at the arb page,[44] I can't think of any logical reason to deny the tag correctly applied based on both. If Rlevse is ready to move forward and be rehabilitated, disputing the tagging seems counterproductive. In addition to the curious article overlap mentioned by Geometry guy: [45] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? Some conduct is so obviously spawned by bias that credibility becomes victim. I've seen some of this and support it as detrimental. My76Strat (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: The stalker tool is fun and all, but comparing the overlaps between PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky and me, and PumpkinSky and you, I'm not sure what it tells us exactly. 28bytes (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing anybody with me via the stalker tool is useless, since there's pretty much no place I haven't been, and my fingers have been in just about every article to ever be on the mainpage. I overlap with everyone who edits. It's more helpful to use the tool to look at the specific edits within the articles identified (for example, in my case, you discover I almost always did some sort of cleanup when the article was at FAC or DYK or on the mainpage). Then explain that overlap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nothing to be said of dropping the stick and taking a step away from the dead horse? - that's only true if the horse is actually dead. Other people here seem ready to welcome him back with open arms, in which case I want every last bit of his misbehavior documented. At least then all the paperwork will be in good order the next time he takes a dump on our porch and then declares he's leaving wikipedia forever. Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is are only 30 similar pages. All of them DYK related, or AN/BN related. Many editors overlap on these places. I don't really see an strong evidence here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you can lead a horse to water ...

Tools. Sample. Perhaps that will help. Now, look at any of my overlap with anyone, and you'll find in almost every case that my edits are explained by FAC, DYK or mainpage presence, and usually amount to cleanup only, not content addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Get the facts straight. BarkingMoon is not Rlevse, but is associated in some way; on the other hand, Rlevse admitted to being PumpkinSky. Therefore...BarkingMoon is probably not Rlevse. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us do have our facts straight. Some of us don't believe everything we read, particularly when there are no conclusive facts. There is evidence, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC x 3) What I find sad is that editors are warring to remove the sockpuppet tag from the Pumpkin Sky userpage even though checkuser confirmed it was Rlevse [46]. Now what's that about bias and explanations for why the Rlevse sock categories weren't populated? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That as a good-faithed misunderstanding: the tag that was placed on the page claimed that the user was "blocked indefinitely" which hadn't been the case at the time. Amalthea 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the two accounts being two different persons is as probable as live brain cloning having been invented in Montana. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [47] and [48], both of which concern the BarkingMoon/Rlevse connection. Will Beback talk 22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at the edit summaries

On talk pages in particular. High similarity between BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky in the terse style, and particularly the use of "start" as edit summary for talk page posts [49] [50]. I've not seen other editors do that insofar. Maybe there are some who do, but on top of all the other correlations, it's highly improbable for it to be just a coincidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's as blatant a duck as if it were Daffy himself dancing around and teasing Porky Pig. The denials and overt bias are just sad. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you feel my tendency in this regard quacks as loudly? [51] My76Strat (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False protagonist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burpelson, the comments about "denial" and "bias" are completely unhelpful. What SandyGeorgia and ASCIIn2Bme are doing – providing evidence and analysis for us to look at – is helpful, and frankly pushing me in the direction of agreeing with the tagging. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a very small point, but they add up: My76Strat would fail as an obvious Rlevse impersonator on account of the frequent capital letters at the start of edit summaries, which none of the other accounts use. One would have to argue that this change was a deliberate deception... Geometry guy 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another telling edit summary is "tks" used by both accounts. [52] [53] They also both refer to the DYK queues using the same notation e.g "q5", "q6" in the edit summaries [54] [55]. Another commonality is that both accounts use "ps" as edit summary when they append to an existing post [56] [57]. It's highly improbable that two random Wikipedians would exhibit all these commonalities. I'd very curious if anyone can find another account to match all these elements. That would take some database trawling, and I don't have a tool server account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next, you start on these; it's not the number of articles where there is overlap (I overlap all over the place with everyone), it's the nature of the articles and the nature of the individual edits that you have to look at. There are some pretty obscure articles there that need examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's enough to note that BarkingMoon also had an interest in obscure places from Montana: [58]; more. The interest of PumpkinSky in that is well established. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add BarkingMoon to CCI?

Looking at the list above led me to this:

William Temple Hornaday (a scouting article, Rlevse territory, also edited by Rlevse)

Source: [59]

In 1885, President Theodore Roosevelt sensed that the buffalo would become extinct and sent Smithsonian taxidermist William Temple Hornaday to harvest buffalo specimens so that future generations of Americans may remember what the American buffalo looked like.

Article:[60]

Hornaday, working for the Smithsonian Institution, harvested specimens from the region in 1886 so that future generations would know what the buffalo looked like.

Also, 1885 became 1886 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well, Sandy, if the source says Theodore Roosevelt was president in 1885, I have certain issues with it. But as the next sentence says "With the help of the U.S. Army, Hornaday got his skins to the rail head at Miles City in the nick of time to avoid the historic blizzards of 1886." I think that's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities etc.

(work in progress)

Edit summaries:
"tks" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

"ps" – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky

"q#" –
Rlevse:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BarkingMoon:

1

PumpkinSky:

1 2 3

Page editing overlaps:
Rlevse and BarkingMoon

Rlevse and PumpkinSky

BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky

The three together

More to come. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without tools: it's not so surprising that PumpkinSky and BarkingMoon overlap on Noel F. Parrish, after the former was asked to help improving the latter's article and then helped bringing it to GA. Abbreviations: I use "tks" and "appr" myself. You use what you see and like, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but look who asked him, user:Ched Davis. BarkingMoon said he confided his real identity to the only admin he trusted, Ched. In that light, the thread about Parrish does more to confirm that they are all the same user. Will Beback talk 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which begets the question what Ched knew all along about the three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you think he would ask male or female then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible he shared the newer account(s) with relatives/friends in order to confuse potential investigations. But clearly a subset of edits by all three accounts were performed by the same person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying that possibility. If a subset, which subset? Aren't the individual accounts at least as coherent within themselves as they are with each other? That suggests at most one editor (or main editor, but exceptional edits need to be identified as such) per account. The question is whether those three (main) editors were three different people: so far, we know that two were the same person, which is a huge clue towards understanding the third. Geometry guy 23:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd best address that question to people who introduce[d] evidence that subsets are strict. I have no such evidence. According to Raul654, John Vandenberg (speaking for the whole Arbitration Committee) said that BarkingMoon might be someone else because he seemed to know German and had a "completely different focus". [61] Furthermore, Arbitrator Risker said that "there was also some contradictory and pretty-well-impossible-to-fake technical evidence against" BarkingMoon being the same as Rlevse [62]. So ask ArbCom what contradictory evidence they have. Although I have presented evidence which indicates that at least some of the edits of BarkingMoon are very similar to those of Rlevse, I make no claim to have exhaustively checked all edits of BarkingMoon against those of Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The thread makes for very interesting reading with the benefit of hindsight (e.g., "Someone put a lot of work into that. Sorry about your friend." and "I'd rather people on the 'net know as little about me as possible."). Note also that Ched spotted PumpkinSky for working on a similar article to his departed friend, BarkingMoon. However this thread does not suggest that Ched thought PumpkinSky was BarkingMoon (unless they were both acting out a script, an assertion impossible to prove), and at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#stopping by, Ched has stated that to the best of his knowledge, BarkingMoon was "a former IP who registered". On the other hand Rlevse told Arbcom that BarkingMoon was related to him in some way. At the very least there is some economy with the truth going on here somewhere, if not outright lies. So far, it seems more likely to me that Ched was among the deceived, not the deceivers. Geometry guy 23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the "coincidences" copious uses of just "oops" as edit summary [63] [64] [65]. And also "ref seq" [66] [67] [68]. BarkingMoon and Rlevese also used "punct bef ref" [69] [70] and "recycle" in conjunction with "ref" [71] [72] The fanbois need to call it quits at this point. I've found a few more rare and interesting ones, but I'm stopping here per WP:BEANS, in case he creates a new account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add one more smoking gun to the evidence. BarkingMoon's 24th edit (as an obviously experienced editor) was this contribution to an ANI (!) thread about User:Damiens.rf where he commented "If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped."

Of course BarkingMoon couldn't stop Damiens.rf without help, but Rlevse certainly did. Geometry guy 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which number the ANI edit was is even less impressive than the fact that it was made less than 3 hours after the BarkingMoon account was created. I think the wiki-phrase for that is "obvious sock is obvious". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have looked through the user talk history of Damiens.rf for some "Former IP" who might have been as interested in this as Rlevse was, but have failed to find a convincing match.

My opinion (based on my understanding to date) is that Rlevse created and edited the BarkingMoon account, but somewhere along the way he became trapped in one of his own lies. He could not come clean because it would undermine a lie that would be very damaging/embarrassing to him. So he dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole as BarkingMoon (explaining the very insistent denials towards the end) and had to quit. When he came back as PumpkinSky, he had learned a lesson: to keep the lies under control. Consequently, when challenged, he was able to admit to the lie, and did.

As ASCIIn2Bme notes, he may find these discussions rather informative, should he try to give it another go with a new account. Handling that possibility is the next challenge the community needs to face. Geometry guy 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Can someone check if the Rlevse account edited articles of Playboy centerfolds? Because the BarkingMoon account surely was interested in that too. Alas, if you hit me with a list of Playboy model names, I wouldn't be able to recognize one in a hundred off the top of my head, so this sleuthing job is for someone else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know anything about the relationships between Rlevse Δ/Betacommand and Damiens.rf? I'm asking because of this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Is it really necessary to edit-war on User:BarkingMoon while this discussion is ongoing? 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest someone protects the wrong version. Geometry guy 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Alison ^❤ 01:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky emails

Pumpkinsky just a few minutes ago posted an email thread between himself and user:Will Beback. Beback wrote to Pumpkinsky asking if he planned to continued returning, in violation of RTV, and stating that if he did continue returning, Beback would post heretofore damaging information concerning Rleve's previous behavior involving user:jojo. The resonse (from Rleve) was both profane and suggested that the arbitration committee was aware of this, and actively suppressed it. Rlevse said he would not be intimidated, and that's why he was posting it. Mbisanz oversighted it shortly thereafter, on the pre-text that they violated Will's copyright. (And if you believe that's the real reason they were deleted, I have a bridge to sell you) I'm reconstructing the conversation entirely from memory, but that's teh gist of it. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the posts before they were ~~oversighted~~revdeleted, and that's pretty much it. We don't need any more of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Raul, it was User:JoJo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not oversight them nor did I suppress them. I rev-deleted them. Any administrator can still review them. Also, per WP:EMAILABUSE and that famous arbitration case involving ~~Giano~~Durova, posting of other persons' emails on-wiki is forbidden as a copyright violation. Arbcom and any admins can still see the text there. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence: :Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENT notification

Hi - I thought the community should have a notification about what imo is a quite important RFC about the spreadingsantorum website and whether or not we should be linking to it from en wikipedia articles and I added it to WP:CENT - it was quickly removed diff - is it wrong or objectionable to attempt to attract community comments to this RFC using a link from WP:CENT? If so , please advise how to raise the profile of this RFC. User:Nomoskedasticity has removed it again after another user replaced it, Centralized discussion revision history - claiming its only a content dispute, but the main objections are WP:BLP and that it is an attack site created to demean a single living person. Is it a discussion of enough president to warrant centralized notification? thanks - Youreallycan 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My god this has gotten out of hand. Can we gat some non-American or politically neutral American admins to watch this a bit closer? We've had two bitterly worded RfCs on this in the past week, the page itself is on lockdown, I'm just not sure what else can be done... Sven Manguard Wha? 20:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC

@Sven - Your comments are nothing at all to do with my question. Youreallycan 20:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENTNOT is fairly clear about what issues do not go in the CENT template, and content disputes are among them. There are elements of BLP and ATTACK, certainly, but the disagreement at its core is whether the site can be discussed or linked without violating those policies. And that's a content dispute. If you're looking for somewhere to post notices regarding the RFC, you might post a note at the BLP noticeboard, or at the Administrator's Noticeboard in the context of "This is gonna get heated, please keep an eye out". UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a couple of other admin opinions as to this issue - It seems quite reasonable to me to bring such a discussion via WP:CENT guidelines, to a wider community audience as per - Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - Is it acceptable under WP:BLP policy to link to external Blogger (service) sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person. - Youreallycan 21:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CENT might be appropriate if there were a proposal to change a policy of some sort. The issue in this RfC is only the interpretation of policy as it applies to a single article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - User:Nomoskedasticity, what are your objections to the usual benefits to be expected from the wider community opining on this issue? Youreallycan 21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin opinion -- content dispute, not suitable for centralized discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin opinion (Disclaimer: very involved): Discussion is ranging into the realm of whether WP:BLP or WP:ELOFFICIAL is more worthy of upholding. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Virtually every content dispute is about the proper application of some policy or guideline to a content question. By your logic they would all belong on CENT: they obviously do not, or CENT would lose all its usefulness. That clause means discussion about existing policies etc. as such, not as applied to a particular content question. T. Canens (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a policy clarification that is worthy of WP:CENT publication - Appropriate - Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures - Is it acceptable under WP:BLP policy to link to external Blogger (service) sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person. - Youreallycan 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I noticed that in the past disputes on that page were tagged with {{rfctag|policy}}—another misunderstanding of what that other venue is for, which probably stemmed from the same confusion that T. Canens dissected above. [73] [74] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acheron, Victoria

Hello,I would like to bring to your attention the article Acheron, Victoria, that IMHO should be checked. From august (this was the situation), it was really enlarged by the contributions of some anons and new users. The problem is that most of this contribs are unverified/unsourced, lots of sections are biographies, other are unclear or possibly not notable for an encyclopedia (an example), and other sects (and subsects) are empty. I'm also checking if all the content is free or a copyvio. Note: "Acheron History Project" (instead of "History") as section title sounds very strange, as a way to intend the article as a sort of AcheronWiki.org main page. I hope that this is the right place to request a "check" for an article. Sorry for eventual mistake and thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like one person - and IP's, but that's probably the same person before they got a user account - needs to learn about referencing. I've reverted their most recent additions [75] and left them a note [76].

The article needs work to fix it up; any unreferenced info can be removed by anyone - and some of it should be removed. Other parts could possibly be referenced.

I can't see any need for admin intervention. DerBorg, for this type of issue, it'd be best to first contact the person adding the material, and ask them. For help, you're probably best asking on help desk, and/or a wikiproject (Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board). I've added a request on the latter [77]. Chzz ► 01:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New file upload wizard

I'd like to present an idea I've been working on, about a new file upload wizard. I have written a working draft that is currently at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft. To test it, you will need to activate the Javascript, by adding

importScript('User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/uploadscript.js');

to your personal .js page (Special:Mypage/vector.js).

The idea is to have a wizard-style dialogue that guides the user through all the necessary decisions about copyright, sourcing and fair-use issues. Ideally, it could be deployed as a Gadget, or through site-wide js, once it's in a stable working state.

All help in further developing, bugfixing, testing and feedback will be greatly appreciated. I suggest discussion to be held at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 272: / Line 272: @@
 *I've re-opened the RFC per your request, let's take this and all related matters up there. Thanks. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 == Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232 ==
+{{archive top|[[WP:SNOW]]. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)}}
 :: Moved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=474607909&oldid=474607386 from ANI]. <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 346: / Line 346: @@
 ::*'''Comment''' as one of the people now working both CCIs, All I can say is that I want EVERY ONE OF YOU on this thread to please to go over there and help, seeing as how you started this in the first place.  There are something like 1,800 articles now on the two lists and will be more if you add Barking Moon.  If everyone agrees to review even one each of the major ones and 5-10 of the little ones, it would be a huge help.   But please, also ask if your edits from five years ago were all perfect too, OK?  We probably have 10 wiki-gnoming and cleanup edits to every substantive one.  The stuff on Rlevse going back to 2005 or 2006 is simply a huge pain in the butt to review, many articles have changed substantially, other, smaller ones less so, and of the couple I've found that have some question, they are so close to the line that I can't see any way to phrase it all that differently, personally, and asked others to peek and see.  Frankly, I'm starting to worry about editing anything myself -- I get jumped on for OR if I write stuff I know, then find sources, but if I read it first, how can my mind not be "contaminated" by the phrasing?  At the level we are scrutinizing Rlevse on close paraphrasing (and still, few problems, probably no worse than most of us with a long edit history), we may wind up deleting half the encyclopedia if we applied it rigidly across the board to all articles -- heck 3/4 of the encyclopedia.  [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 :::* Curious, who are you referring to with "seeing as how you started this in the first place"?  Amalthea started the CCI, knew about it before even the arbs, and actually, to date, none of us know how Amalthea came to realize that PumpkinSky was Rlevse.  If you want to point at some who contributed to this, perhaps the people who should be doing the cleanup are all the DYk regulars.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
+{{archive bottom}}
 == [[User:BarkingMoon]] sock tagging ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards