Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 5 February 2012 (→‎Note regarding DID dispute: Expand.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      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/IncidentArchive1166#User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Censorship_by_copyright#Cartoons

      (Initiated 123 days ago on 22 May 2024) – RfC template was removed by a bot a few weeks ago, but this still needs a formal close. I am involved so I'd prefer to see someone else do it, particularly as I believe the discussion ended up endorsing my viewpoint. --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

      (Initiated 111 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 91 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Had I not !voted, I would probably close this with "why in all hell did you think opening an RfC with nine options, many of which are very similar, would be a good way to find consensus?!?". We probably need a guideline advising against such inane choices. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

      Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

      (Initiated 76 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 69 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Was just about to submit this. Adding my comment for bumping. - Ïvana (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Kamala_Harris#RFC:_How_to_refer_to_the_African_ancestry_of_Kamala_Harris?

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 31 July 2024) Requesting closure on this discussion which has not had a new comment in a week when excluding its brief archival. The discussion is lengthy and split into multiple sections. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 43 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:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article?

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
      CfD 0 0 7 20 27
      TfD 0 0 1 7 8
      MfD 0 0 2 4 6
      FfD 0 0 1 0 1
      RfD 0 0 0 25 25
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 11#LGBT nominations which were opposed at CFDS

      (Initiated 10 days ago on 11 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#LGBT articles

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 13 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

      (Initiated 290 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

      (Initiated 139 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 117 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

      (Initiated 115 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 105 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

      (Initiated 83 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 76 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      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 [2]  Chzz  ►  12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bump  Chzz  ►  13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bump  Chzz  ►  18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC) (Have I gone invisible?)[reply]
      Speaking for myself only, it's not that you're invisible, it's that the page seems pretty incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already frequent it. A note on the talk pages of a few admins who you know have worked there before might lead to better results than a note at AN. Although it's possible the problem is just that I'm the dumbest admin around... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Same here... I'm sorry I can't be of help, but can't make heads or tails of that page... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll thumbwrestle you both over the "dumbest admin" title. I think I'd do more harm than good at that page. I consider myself reasonably competent at most admin duties but some things I just don't trust myself with... The spam blacklist, proxy checking, rangeblocks, obscure image copyright questions, etc. -- Atama頭 20:11, 3 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.[3] 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: [4] 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]

      Statement from Tom Cloyd - After considerable thought, I'm at peace with my thinking about all this. I'm leaving Wikipedia. for those who have interest in my thoughts, you'll find them here. Tom Cloyd (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wonderful piece Tom. Your enormous talents are lost here. There are so many better uses for them than spinning your wheels trying to make progress against those like WLU. Best of luck Sir! You have my utmost respect and admiration.~ty (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


      See WhatamIdoing's comment below for a good explanation of why, in this case, an indef is actually the best way to create a "cooling off period." Blocking's not really necessary but there are behavioural issues. eldamorie (talk) 18:51, 3 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[5] 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 [6] [7] [8]), overall compliance with the P&G ([9], [10], [11], idiosyncratic understanding of issues such as the use of the accessbility tag [12], the role of WP:MEDRS [13], WP:MOS#ATTRIBUTION [14], WP:CONSENSUS [15] [16], claims that specific policies don't apply such as WP:NOR [17], WP:NPOV [18] [19] [20] [21], wikilawyering over the meaning of policies [22] 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 [23] [24] [25] [26], [27], or that because he treats DID he is correct on wikipedia [28]. 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]
      • Reluctantly support the ban at least for the article. I'm on the fence about the talk page, because to the extent that he has sources to support his POV, Wikipedia needs to know what those sources are. (Tom's promised to provide a list of sources he recommends, but hadn't done so last I checked.) The talk page behavior has been appalling (and, sadly, has been getting worse), but perhaps being limited to the talk page would help Tom remember how to win friends and influence people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You can all just quit. You have already run him off. Not everyone is into manipulation by collecting friends. WhatamIdoing. ~ty (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Tylas, let me suggest that you read meatball:GoodBye. It might help you understand why experienced editors don't normally believe people who make noisy claims about leaving. Threatening to leave is a well-known manipulative ruse regularly used by people who feel they are losing a dispute like this. Wikipedia probably sees a dozen such claims every day of the week. In the vast majority of cases, such people never actually leave. At most, they might stop editing for a couple of days, but in the end, their claims to be permanently departing are almost always just as factual as the fairytales parents read to little children at bedtime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't speak for another and he has not said one word, yet you accuse him of that too. I for one would never come back to this place. It's very dysfunctional.~ty (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So you keep telling us. However, I don't see any evidence that you are following through on your threat. My recommendation to you is that you either (1) stop publicly threatening to leave or (2) that you actually leave. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, read WP:DIVA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Apart from the issues correctly raised in the topic ban proposal, there is this comment (visible at the bottom of this section which includes "telling the truth IS what I do). If Tom works on some other articles he may come to understand why Wikipedia is organized the way it is, and why some people are not helpful as editors for some articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support The editor just isn't getting it and this subject is clearly too personal to him. Colin°Talk 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Oppose. While I agree that TomCloyd has broken WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I believe that an 'indefinite' topic ban is a gross over-reaction and will serve only to drive an expert away. The reason(s) that I think that an indefinite topic ban is an over-reaction, is that other less harsh measures have not been tried first, such as mentoring or even a transient 'cool-down' topic ban of 1 month. I do agree with TomCloyd, in his POV and concerns about wording and WP:WEIGHT given to 'dubious' minority viewpoints, that dissociative identity disorder is well established as a mental disorder arising out of prolonged/repeated severe (usually early age) childhood abuse; conversely I agree with people who are concerned, upset and angry with Tom's poor control of his emotions and his inability to separate strong feelings, from 'disinterested' policy and guideline based encylopedia editing. I would be happy to mentor TomCloyd and try to get him to see why some of his outbursts have been inappropriate even if the other person/side is 'wrong', i.e. two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe a voluntary topic ban of say a month or two and myself mentoring. If serious and repeated problems arise again, then I would support a more 'draconian' approach but only as a last resort. Lets be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've worked with LG before and would have no issue with Tom being mentored by him/her. The originally proposed ban was only to last until evidence that NPOV and BATTLE were understood in accordance with the community at large. If a month from now Tom indicates he sees what he did wrong, he's welcome back on the page as far as I'm concerned. The traumagenic position does need to be represented and I'm certainly not interested in reading up on it - but it can't be represented as the only, only important, or dominant opinion unless there is good evidence for it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason that I think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate is because it might end up being much shorter than a stated-length ban. "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Indefinite bans can be reversed as soon as the underlying problem appears to have been addressed, in this case by Tom "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." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi WLU, thanks for the words of support for my mentorship idea. I firmly agree that the iatrogenic cause and any other minority causes should be included in the article, wasn't saying it shouldn't be. I think there is good evidence for the traumagenic position, given that the World Health Organisation (ICD 10) and the American Psychiatric Association (via DSM) accept it as a legitamate psychiatric disorder; we don't need to find evidence to support the expert psychiatric/psychology viewpoint to justify which view should be dominant, the mainstream viewpoint should dominate. We as wikipedians, should not be looking for evidence to support the ICD and DSM, mainstream position, we should give most weight to the expert consensus. ADHD has a fair amount of controversy surrounding it, but we don't give most weight to the ADHD is just a personality variation type position and try to undermine the DSM and ICD10, we give most weight to the viewpoint that ADHD is a real disorder; however, both sides are still presented with the mainstream viewpoint being fairly described. In the meantime we need to resolve behavioural issues and the editing environment on that article talk page. WAID, I see your point; however, given that Tom says he is leaving Wikipedia a ban of any description is now probably unnecessary.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I should note that I am not concerned with WLU's editing on the article, as I know WLU, edits within guidelines and policies, but there is another editor who regards the consensus viewpoint of the DSM and ICD as pseudoscience and fringe and would worry that that could lead to a badly written article. It kind of reminds me of an editor who tried to push the view that Bell's Palsy was a 'conversion disorder'. Again, though I do not in any way deny the concerns problematic behavioural reactions Tom has displayed in a stressful editing environment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Literaturegeek, I worry about that as well. I am very new to wikipedia, only three weeks or so, but I learn pretty fast and am going to be reviewing the literature which I am only slightly familiar with right now. I think we can make the article really great and I 100% agree on your ADHD comparison. Additionally, if you are referring to user Juice Leskinen as a huge POV pusher still contributing, he/she has been banned for socking. Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes that was the editor of whom I was concerned about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support indef ban until TomCloyd indicates willingness to abide by community standards, which includes persuing changes to the MOS through proposals there. TC seems to have the same issue we've had with other expert contributors: believing that his expertise in the field trumps Wikipedia's established processes and style conventions. We encourage experts to contribute their knowledge, but no one reacts well when an expert decides they're going to "fix" Wikipedia to conform to their standards. There's a bit of a disconnect where some experts believe it's insulting for non-experts to school them on a subject (such as Wikipedia's MOS, which differs from academic styles); I can appreciate that, but expertise does not trump working within the community's standards. An expert contributing to Encyclopedia Brittanica would not be allowed to dictate page layout in the encyclopedia entry for their subject of study. I'd say mentorship by User:Literaturegeek would be ideal. It would give TC the opportunity to contribute while learning a bit more about the whys of our P&G. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Note regarding DID dispute

      It may be of value to note that one of the editors who Tom was in conflict in with, was POV pushing that sexual abuse of prepubescent children did not cause mental health problems and was using sockpuppeteering to do this. The editor, Juice Leskinen, has now been blocked. I am not comfortable with TomCloyd being seen as the only problem editor here and some leeway should be given as the vast majority of people are opposed to pedophilia due to the harm that it causes. Juice Leskinen was of the viewpoint that DID was not caused by early childhood abuse and that DID was pseudoscience/FRINGE etc and was using a sockpuppet on other articles as well, to disguise his agenda perhaps. Many people would find editing alongside/against a disruptive editor such as Juice Leskinen, to be a stressful situation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Moved from ANI. Nobody Ent 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, hit the wrong button and sent a bad edit summary-- I have reverted the premature close since new information just came to light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 3 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 [29] - 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]
      (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]
      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]
      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)
      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]
      • 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]
      • 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]
      • oppose per My76Strat and SandyGeorgia. and others. — Ched :  ?  17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC) revised — Ched :  ?  20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]
      • Comment As long as the Rlevse 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]
      • 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]
      • 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. --Rschen7754 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]
      • 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]
      • Comment - I closed this proposal per WP:SNOW after roughly 10 hours of discussion and overwhelming opposition. This was swiftly undone by SandyGeorgia on the basis that new information had come to light—presumably because she suspected that this new information would alter the course of this proposal. In the several hours since, however, opposition has continued to pile up. I respect that one must feel strongly about something to reverse a closing admin's decision while involved, but at this point, a SNOW closure looks virtually inevitable. Sandy, do you still feel this proposal needs to remain open? Swarm X 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You "closed this proposal per WP:SNOW" immediately after new evidence came to light, and immediately after I struck my previous position. Did you not notice that many subsequent !voters were "per SandyGeorgia" (and My76), hence if I had changed my position, that might be relevant? Does that not give you some clue that closing a discussion overnight, and not allowing for time differences and others to weigh in, might not be wise? I'm always amused at admins wanting to close off discussions at the speed of light, when this is the Internet and not everyone is on 24/7, and always think it curious that admins think their decisions are God-like. Yes, I always feel that discussions shouldn't be closed when half the world is still asleep, and closures like this do nothing to mitigate my suspicion that they sometimes result from the IRC crowd drumming up a freshly minted admin to close a controversial discussion off post-haste. There is plenty of conflicting information coming out here, with arbs and CUs not even caught up yet and on the same page-- what's the hurry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me go on record as opposing the ban as well. He needs to stop shooting himself in the foot, though. No more battling old foes or posting private correspondence, for starters. 28bytes (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I don't suppose I really need to pile on, but the proposed remedy is excessive. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. User abused the RTV, sockpuppeted to return to former battlegrounds, and has apparently no intention of reforming. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Since other non-admins are speaking up here, I will too. I was distressed when Rlevse left. I still find it hard to believe BarkingMoonPumpkinSky is the same person. But nothing I am aware of that either of them did justifies banning, and the use of e-mails to tell someone not to return strikes me as dirty pool. It would be best for the project if Rlevse returned; whatever people feel he must then answer for or help clean up can best be dealt with then. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I find it hard to believe that a one-time respected and respectable character - one who is an admin and gets elevated to arbcom - plagiarizes articles - gets caught - quits - and sneaks back in - pretending to be an enemy of the featured article project - and attacks other editors - and you want him back?...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support community ban; the copyvio issues are minor in comparison to the disruption visited upon FAC by PumpkinSky. I've just had occasion to revisit an old thread on Cas's page, and the time that PumpkinSky wasted because of revising old grudges is absurd. All things considered, I don't think he can be rehabilitated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support indef block, Oppose ban for now at least. Rlevse was an good administrator, but with some serious flaws. The RTV thing is a clear abuse of the system, especially that his accounts weren't going back to the reasons why Rlevse did a RTV (which should have been denied because there wasn't any harrassment or ousting involved when he invoked it, just that he didn't want to be involved in the criticism). His behavior with his sock involving FAC is obviously a grudge, and the BarkingMoon behavioral evidence is way too damming. A restriction must be made in order for Rlevse to come back to the project, including limitation to one account, topic ban on DYK and FAC, interaction ban with SandyGeorgia and Raul, plus some mentoring. I think that's the best for Rlevse, remember all this mess would have been avoided if only Rlevse cooperated with the community after the Grace Sherwood incident. Secret account 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Rlevse clearly lacks the competence required for source-based writing without plagiarism or even copyvios, and instead of dealing with this problem constructively he has been blaming everybody else for it. In part this is the community's fault for not noticing the problem earlier, but his behaviour since invocation of RTV has been atrocious and must not continue.
        RTV is essentially a voluntary self-ban that comes with some privileges. Rlevse has been trying to profit from these benefits without sticking to his part of the contract, and then he accused Will Beback of blackmail merely for pointing out the obvious consequence.
        When we get socking by a disgraced ex-arbitrator who plagiarised on a large scale and ex-bureaucrat who vote stacked, then there is simply no reasonable alternative to a full site ban. Hans Adler 11:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, when you put it that way... - jc37 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Hans. Raul654 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) Support I've looked at the various threads for awhile now, and was on the fence. The copyvio, while annoying and causing now a lot of work, was something I was willing to WP:AGF about, as rephrasing vs summarising could potentially be a near thing at times. But I think I have to agree with Hans Adler here. I would also support Secret's suggstion of an indef block with restrictions on returning, as an alternative, but since unfortunately Rlevse has apparently been gaming things for awhile now, I don't know if we could trust that he would not continue to do so. - jc37 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the additional information that came to light since my previous suggestion that he be required to help in the CCI, I think some interaction and topic bans may also be necessary if he decides to return in an open fashion. However, my bet is that he will sock again, relying on his wikifriends for concealment and defense even in "obvious sock is obvious" circumstances. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:32, 4 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 GianoDurova, 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]

      In response to a request on my talk page, I can confirm that the two edits corresponding to IDs 474620971 and 474680170 have been revdeleted and not suppressed and should be visible to any admin. -- Avi (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm sorry for creating confusion by saying they were oversighted-- since I'm not an admin, I didn't know. I have now struck and corrected to say they were revdeleted. At any rate, I can no longer see them (non-admin), but I did see them before they were revdel'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No problem. There are actually three processes, though we often refer to them as "oversight" as that was the first (hacky) technique used:
      1. Revdeletion can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia admins (and technically oversighters, stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
      2. Suppression can hide specific revisions (oldids as it were) from all but EnWikipedia Oversighters (and technically stewards, staff, and Jimbo). This is easily reversible.
      3. Oversight was the process used for the old method which did its hiding at the server level prior to the development of the revdelete extension, and all-but-completely removes the revision from history. This is essentially irreversible (it may require custom code from developers, and I'm not certain that would work). This is pretty much deprecated and has not been used since 2010.
      Hope that clears some of this up. -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the concerns about copyrights, etc. I think that the privacy of emails should be maintained. That said, I did not say anything to Rlevse/PumpkinSky that I would be embarrassed for others to see. The key points, already expressed here, are that very disturbing behavior by Rlevse came to light after his RTV, which I chose not to make public at the time since it was moot. I did share it with the ArbCom so that it would be known. One of the senior ArbCom members agreed and said that the matter would be revisited if Rlevse returned. When I wrote to PumpkinSky I informed him that this material was being kept private only so long as he was inactive, but that if he might return then it should be made public. I asked for his assurance that he was not planning to return. The responses were very inflammatory.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To the best of my memory, that summarizes what I read before it was revdeleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Will. You've been very helpful. Now, given that we are discussing whether or not a community ban is in order, and given that his response suggests he is very likely to return, could you please go into details about that disturbing behavior on Rlevse's part? Raul654 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, some disclosure - I've known Rlevse for several years and I once considered him a friend and respected colleague. I've just read the correspondence in question, and I am utterly appalled at all of this. I simply cannot comprehend what sort of brain-snap has occurred in Rlevse that has led to this behaviour.
      On a positive note, I wish to strongly applaud Will Beback for his thoroughly dignified and professional handling of this matter (and invite other editors to do the same). Manning (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't parse the above at face value. A thing that is private might best remain private if disclosure serves no other benefit beyond curiosity at the expense of a living person. To state "if he might return then it should be made public" would constitute a threat of reprisal against what would be otherwise proper. If the matter is of importance and directly pertinent to things the community should be aware, the agreement to keep it private could be a dis-service to the entire constituency. Without asking for details, can you explain the nature of the private information held? My76Strat (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Undeleted

      With Will Beback's consent, I have undeleted these e-mails so that non-admins may view them. 28bytes (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you, this helps greatly. My76Strat (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Rlevse's actions as bureaucrat

      Here is what I wrote to the ArbCom in July 2011:

      By mutual declaration, User:JoJo is Rlevse's wife. She is from Thailand and her written English is broken. She edited for a couple of years, most recently in June 2010. She has mostly worked on articles related to places in Thailand. Other than some work on Wikiproject Thailand, she has not edited any administrative page with two big exceptions. She has participated in over 60 RFAs and RFBs, including 28 in which Rlevse also voted or handled the closing. Some of those closures were discretionary and JoJo's vote made a noticeable difference in the percentage. I see no cases in which they showed a difference of opinion. [31]
      Most of JoJo's comments are brief and uninformative, but a couple of them show greater knowledge, including correcting a candidate on a policy interpretation and commenting on another editor's overall career. Her total lack of involvement with other project pages makes it hard to believe that she would be such an avid and informed voter without some input by Rlevse, at least. The best case is that JoJo heard her husband discussing these editors, and then made up her own mind even if unintentionally repeating what he'd told her. Another possibility is that she was his meatpuppet or proxy in RfAs and RfBs.

      I think this may represent a serious violation of community trust. Regardless of other issues surrounding Rlevse and account blocks, I do not think that the user should be granted any special user rights that involve trust until these issues have been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Somehow this doesn't surprise me. One of the two tkses of JoJo was in a RfA vote [32]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. I would be interested to see the close calls Will mentions above, not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome, but with the goal of learning how we can better identify groups of !voters and attempt to find a way to discount groups we can clearly see are meatpuppets of each other. MBisanz talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cavalry and Panyd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Since my name has been brought up... a few comments: 1) Gingko and I often share perspectives/views---not always, but often, which is why we've been together for 15+ years. Thus, similarity in !voting is not uncommon. 2) One way to avoid meat puppets among spouses is having them be open. 3) In my case, my wife's being an admin was one of the reasons why I ran---as mentioned in her nomination statement, she wanted me to gain the tools so that I wouldn't ask her to do something when I saw it needed to be done. 4) Of bigger concern than spouses (as a general rule) are those who associate together on IRC or other mediums. I don't think spouses are a huge risk because they are often known. (Generally my wife and I won't get involved in disputes where the other is invovled. If we do, we generally disclose the fact that we are related in the specific discussion.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      With that in mind, I do think it might be something to include in our WP:COI. If I saw a discussion which my wife was involved, I would not close that discussion as it might be perceived as a COI issue. That being said, as it wasn't part of the policy and it might be hard to notice every editor on an RfA, I wouldn't jump too fast at this. Also, what is the point of dredging this up now? Are we going to go back and ask all admins who were promoted by Rlvese to undergo a new RfA 2-3 years after the fact?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "not with an eye towards going back and changing the outcome" I see it as a chance to learn and refine our policies, not re-run old elections. MBisanz talk 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      First, I don't think that JoJo made those !votes independently, and it seems likely that she didn't make them at all. IOW, the account was used, at least occasionally, as a sock puppet and on other occasions as a meat puppet.
      Second, this is being brought up now because it is necessary to review Rlevse's edit history if we are going to discuss his future editing here.
      Third, there's no evidence that anyone was at fault in this matter besides Rlevse himself.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Another interesting element is the "fix count" shared edit summary between the JoJo [33] and Rlevese [34] accounts. Note that per analysis below, there aren't many overlaps in idiosyncratic edit summary usage between these two accounts; only a couple of tkses and one plain oops, but four "fix count" by JoJo in RfAs. Quite an interesting temporary focus on counting every vote in some RfAs she must have had. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, let me get this straight. Are we looking at the possibility that Rlevse used his wife's account to double vote (because they appear to be his edit summaries), or that he encouraged her to vote in a way that determined the outcome of certain RFAs, which he then closed? Also, can you (Will Beback) specify which close RFAs were affected by her one vote? I see that one was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Franamax-- very close, closed by Rlevse, voted on by his wife with an edit summary that resembles his edit summaries, and entered within two minutes of him editing. Have I got that right? What are the other cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have notified Franamax of this discussion. Also, I don't believe Jojo !voted in that RFA - only asked a question.  7  03:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, 7-- I hadn't gotten that far yet. I supported Franamax, so am relieved :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the courtesy notice User:7, ummm, what? I answered the questions I was asked in my RFA, mostly in the order they showed up, but I think a few took longer to think about. I think JoJHutton's question was among the last, or the last one. I got the impression later that there was a relation between that account and the closer of the RFA, but no-one would let me go back and rewrite history to suit my own affairs. ;) 'Tis all in history so far as I know, and I answered the way I would to anyone who asked then or would ask now, my honest response. I did interact with the vanished user previously, in a suspected (and resolved) sock-puppet case several years ago, but other than that have just been eating popcorn on this one. Is anything more needed? Franamax (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a few cash bribes and you'll be in the clear. Cheers Manning (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) It's a joke! We're in dire need of a few laughs, frankly :) [reply]
      (ask Moni3 to bring the cocaine and hookers... Alarbus (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      Goodness, Franamax, I don't see that anything was ever needed from you-- you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, has nothing to do with you, and as you know, I was a supporter anyway, so I don't see how this new information casts "anything" your direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think a very good case has been made that there should be a [1] after Rlevse's entry here. I've put in a query at WT:AC asking what the process is for this. 28bytes (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Finally, I should note that BarkingMoon was quite keen to get into voting on various things as soon as he registered: RfAs, RfBs, banning votes, ArbCom reform, etc. (I'll add some diffs per request if you can't find them.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      ANd might we also mention that the arb descriptions (of contradictory technical evidence) beggars belief, since they knew of evidence of inappropriate editing with his wife's account, and they knew that Rlevse as a former arb knew how CU worked. We've been duped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You have NOT been duped, and this is going entirely too far, SandyGeorgia. What in heaven's name would any arbitrator gain in trying to pull a stunt like that? We of all people know what "the community" does to users who get caught out, particularly those with advanced permissions or higher profiles. So, for that matter, do you: you've had that target on your back too. So please stop this. There was contradictory technical evidence, and it was reviewed and assessed by non-arbitrator checkusers. Risker (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Responded at WT:ARBCOM. [35] Much of this could have been avoided if we weren't getting conflicting information, and if the community is allowed to do what it is supposed to do in cases of inconclusive tecnical evidence. If we aren't allowed to do that, history will repeat in other similar instances. And yes, of all people, I do know what it feels like-- I'd like the same courtesy to be extended to me as is extended to those who abuse of RTV, Cleanstart, any other policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandy - I appreciate that emotions may be running high right now, but Risker is right, there is no reason to accuse the arbs of anything, least of all a conspiracy. Firstly Arbcom have precious little reason to treat Rlevse with any form of favoritism. Secondly, the evidence was reviewed and was inconclusive. If they had acted without conclusive evidence then the outcry from the community would have been savage. (Hell, they get enough grief when there IS conclusive evidence.) Manning (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Risker. There's no one questioning that JoJo exists, and I don't think anyone questions that her edits to Thai articles are her own. There is a concern that some of the edits attributed to her name may not have been made by her, or were unduly influenced, but it is easy to imagine technical evidence for some edits clarifying that it wasn't a pure sockpuppet account. I assume (while understanding the danger of assuming) that identifying technical evidence indicating different people doesn't mean every single edit is by a different person, only that some edits can be so verified, therefore proving that the account is not a pure sockpuppet account.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (That said, I sympathize that SG has gone through a month or more of pure hell, tough enough on its face, and now it appears that a major portion of the hell was by a former trusted editor now abusing that trust. when the dust settles, we should be taking a hard community look at RTV, and CleanStart, and rethinking what we should allow.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the need to look at RTV and CLEANSTART is what this is all about (for me), and your sympathy about what kind of hell FAC has been through is noted and much appreciated. (My response to Risker was over at the ArbCom talk page, where much has now been clarified). I do hope we'll sort these cleanstart and RTV issues, because having reviewed some old threads just in the last few hours, the disruption and time wasted was absurd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the emails between Will Beback and Rlevse, and in them Will Beback threatens Rlevse that if he doesn't leave the project, he will publicly reveal the information about Rlevse's wife's editing. If not blackmail, this is unilateral, extra-judicial administrative action. I thought WP's administration didn't do things this way anymore. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you an administrator? Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife? And, did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      All of the evidence is on-Wiki. In previous discussions with the ArbCom, et al, there was agreement that the information was moot so long as Rlevse was not editing on Wikipedia, and that it would be relevant if he returned to editing. If you think that it's OK for a bureaucrat to use his wife's account to affect the same RFAs that he closes then we have a fundamental disagreement over ethical behavior. But again, this isn't about you or me.   Will Beback  talk  04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Will, I asked you three yes or no questions, which you have yet to answer. I will repeat them:
      • Are you an administrator?
      • Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?
      • Did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Question number 1 looks like one you can answer on your own. Is this an interrogation of administrator Will Beback? ---Sluzzelin talk 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Cla68 - I'll answer them for you as you seem to be having trouble gleaning the obvious answers yourself. 1 - Hold your mouse over Will's name. The 'sysop' tag is quite evident. 2 - No, he didn't, no-one has said he did, not even Rlevse. 3 - "Threaten" is misleading, he behaved as any admin would have behaved in the same circumstances. RTV is a contract, and Will simply pointed out the consequences of breaking that contract. Manning (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It sounds like you all are affirming that Will Beback was acting as an administrator in this case. Now, can you point me to the administrative guidance or policy which recommends or encourages admins to threaten editors with publicly releasing privately-obtained information about their spouse's editing history unless they agree to stop editing Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Where does anyone besides you say this information was privately obtained? From what I can tell these are just diffs found on-wiki? AniMate 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, "confidential info" is probably the better phrase. Will Beback kept the information to himself for future use. Now, again, is the way WP's administration works? Do we "get the goods" on other editors, keep the information in the bottom drawer, then bring it out and privately threaten the editor to "expose" them if they return to Wikipedia? Was Rlevse returning to wikipedia as a beauracrat, or just as an editor (small "e")? If so, why privately threaten him with it? Why not bring it out if he requests restoration of his admin privileges? Again, can you point me to the administrative guideline or policy which recommends that WP admins do things this way? Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If I was Will, I'd point you to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)... Prioryman (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cla68 I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Rlevse invoked RV. That "right" has consequences attached, specifically, that if one decides to return (in spite of a promise not to) that previously unresolved issues are now back on the table. Reminding Rlevse of the consequences of his actions is a prudent action; if not required, certainly a reasonable step. That doesn't make it a threat.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      FWIW, I informed PumpkinSky of this thread so that he could reply.[36] His response is here: [37]   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      More of Cla689's questions for Will Beback

      Another question for Will. You say that ArbCom was aware of all this and had said they would act on it if Rlevse returned. So, why were you involved now? Can you point to the diff or email in which ArbCom directed you to act on their behalf and authorized you to use a threatening tactic in an attempt to coerce Rlevse into leaving Wikipedia even though he isn't community banned? Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cla68, can you answer a question for a change? Please comment on the issue of a bureaucrat's wife !voting in the same RfA that he closes, always voting the same way, and showing much greater knowledge of Wikipedia norms than she does in her other editing. Does that seem like acceptable behavior to you?   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Separate issue. This is the administrators noticeboard, right? So, let's make sure that we're following correct administrative procedures. In the emails, you said ArbCom (specifically NewYorkBrad) had said they would handle this Jojo stuff if Rlevse returned. Rlevse returned. So, did ArbCom handle it? Were you acting on their behalf? Were you authorized by them to handle it? Did you tell them in advance you were going to threaten Rlevse with proclaiming the information if he didn't banish himself? Could you say here which arbitrator delegated this administrative action to you after they had previously said they would handle it? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone is welcome to comment here, even you. But I think your questions are getting a bit tendentious, and are increasingly off-topic. If you'd like to know what the ArbCom thinks then you should ask them. As for this thread, I get the feeling your trying to turn this into an attack on me, so I've split this out.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In the time it took you to separate the sections, you could have made a good start on answering the questions. I will continue to wait for your responses. And, I have asked ArbCom for their side. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cla68's questions reveal a misunderstanding so deep that explanations and answers are unlikely to be helpful. In brief, there is no admin misconduct by Will, and no threats in the tone suggested by the misguided questions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Couldn't agree more. AniMate 07:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Same agreement from me. I provided a thorough answer to the questions earlier. The answers were solely based on examination of the evidence, I have never discussed this issue with Will (or any other admin). This ongoing insistence indicates either incredible ignorance of how WP works, or just harassment for some personal reason. Manning (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cla68 has a long-standing feud with Will, so I'd say both explanations are equally likely. Can we get the personality politics out of the way and get back to discussing useful things, please? Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no feud with Will – and I actually think I've never interacted with either Will or Cla68 before – but I must say that email exchange made my skin crawl. I don't wish to minimise the gravity of Rlevse's actions, which should indeed be discussed, but Will's emails came across as threatening. A very sub-optimal way to handle the situation, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. It's not appropriate. Everyking (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      agree as well. — Ched :  ?  15:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Will's actions were entirely appropriate and above board. Thank you Will, for your yeoman's work. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Assume for a moment that instead of withholding his observations until now, Will Beback had released them while Rlevse was "vanished". I can immediately imagine the outcry over grave dancing and similar concerns in that hypothetical scenario. We routinely suspend RfC/Us when editors say they've departed for the same reasons. It seems a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't choice. Again, I find the blame-the-messenger approach unconstructive. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Agree, Will did nothing wrong. This community's rush to accuse people of "grave dancing" and dismiss everything they say is significant, especially in cases involving longstanding contributors. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I also agree. WP:RTV states: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently." By invoking the right to vanish, and vowing to never return, Rlevse was able to avoid having these things brought to light. In choosing to violate that pledge, Rlevse also chose to risk the consequences. Blackmail is reprehensible because you are coercing a person into meeting your demands by threatening to expose poor behavior. I don't see that Will was trying to get Rlevse to meet any particular demands. He was warning him that he would be effectively giving up immunity, which seems to fall under our guideline on vanishing. -- Atama頭 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding to Atama's point - the allegation that a 'crat had abused his position is one of the most serious I can think of. Will was being very decent by keeping his findings private under RTV. It is an admin's responsibility to disclose evidence of wrongdoing, under the banner of our general duty to protect the project. If Rlevse returned but Will failed to disclose his evidence, Will himself would have been in severe trouble. (I recall an unrelated case a few years back where an Arb was made to step down for failing to disclose similar evidence of editor wrongdoing). Rlevse would have been entitled to due process about these allegations, but Will would still be required to voice his suspicions, and he would have faced consequences if his non-disclosure was discovered. Manning (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have any problem with Atama's formulation, but it would seem to me that such an email would have to be written very carefully to not come across as threatening, even if that wasn't intended. I saw Raul's description but I didn't see the email itself. From the differing things that some people who have seen it have said, it sounds like it might not have been written carefully enough, but that there is room for AGF. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The email as leaked by Rlevse himself has now been un-revdeleted again. It looks fine to me. [38] Hans Adler 11:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the diff. It was nearly impossible to read in normal page layout. Even in diff mode it's unclear who says what towards the end. Unless I'm reading that wrong

      You are so full of shit and the biggest hypocrit ever. Your threats don't scare me. The good thing this every day more and more people become aware of your shenanigans. You can kiss my ass.

      was actually written by Rlevse? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, I like this quote from PumpkinSky when opposing a RfA recently "What else is there we don't know about?" [39]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Good grief, I thought this way of doing things in WP had long passed. The demand, "Please reply at your earliest convenience. Otherwise I'll assume this is part of an ongoing pattern which is likely to be repeated, and act accordingly." is bullying, especially since Will Beback said in the same email trail that he had been told that ArbCom would handle it. Cla68 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      By that logic every warning that asks vandals to cease and desist or else they'd be blocked is also bullying. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      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: [40] [41] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 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,[42] 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: [43] 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]
      (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 [44]. 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]

      See also: [45] and [46], both of which concern the BarkingMoon/Rlevse connection.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You're basically saying that someone spent a considerable amount of time studying Rlevse's mannerisms, topic interests, and grudges in order to impersonate him. I find that much less plausible than the alternative that he is simply Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Keegan, since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, in particular with:

      The BarkingMoon account came to our attention in late June 2011, when we were asked to look into the open SPI on that account. The technical evidence regarding the account was ambiguous; while the CheckUser data was suggestive of a connection to Rlevse, it was inconsistent with other information available to the Committee. When directly asked about the BarkingMoon account, Rlevse denied that it was operated by him, and provided an alternative explanation that was consistent with both sets of technical data. The Committee was divided as to whether this explanation was sufficient; however, as we were discussing the matter, BarkingMoon left the project. Given that our (almost exclusive) focus at the time was dealing with the arbcom-l leaks—indeed, many arbitrators did not participate in the discussion regarding BarkingMoon due to concerns regarding the security of the mailing list—we did not pursue the matter further.
      — User:Kirill 04:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

      Not as adamant that they are "completely unrelated". Perhaps someone should resign their CheckUser bit for lack of professionalism? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:41, 3 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 [47] [48]. 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? [49] 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]
      That and using full sentences like "Add comment to talk page". By the way, if anyone can imitate My76Strat's elaborate phrases on talk pages, I'd "buy" them a wiki-beer or two. I suspect User:Floquenbeam might succeed if they set their mind on the task, but few other have a snowball's change in hell of coming even close, no matter how hard they'd try. Some editors do have very distinctive on-wiki communication style. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It would not be such a stretch for me. :) I tend to write compressed but long sentences, often with moralistic or confessional asides! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

      Another telling edit summary is "tks" used by both accounts. [50] [51] They also both refer to the DYK queues using the same notation e.g "q5", "q6" in the edit summaries [52] [53]. Another commonality is that both accounts use "ps" as edit summary when they append to an existing post [54] [55]. 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: [56]; more. The interest of PumpkinSky in that is well established. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      @Keegan: Isn't it correct that CU is not pixie dust? My understanding is that it can prove two accounts are used by the same person, but that it cannot disprove sock puppetry. In light of this recent thread, I came across circumstantial evidence that user:PumpkinSky used a proxy. Rlevse had CU rights and presumably knew how to evade CU detection. If someone uses a proxy server (open or closed) and a different computer then CU can't find them -- right?   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 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)

      • 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.
      • 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 in the source 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]
      Per this, the blizzard most likely being spoken of happened in November 1886.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I'm glad you caught the logical error and found additional info that explains it before I came 'round again. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      ""That is a copyvio? Not. [59] uses the same words. "Harvest" is the common term for game in those days so that is not of any special concern. And so I do not see the violation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You might find a thorough read of this Dispatch helpful; copyvio is not just a matter of looking at one or two words. At any rate, since there is strong behavioral evidence that the BarkingMoon and Rlevse accounts are operated by the same persons, the question remains: should someone look at BarkingMoon's edits and should BM be added to the CCI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Similarities etc.

      (work in progress)

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

      • BarkingMoon:

      1

      • PumpkinSky:

      1 2 3

      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". [60] 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 [61]. 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 [62] [63] [64]. And also "ref seq" [65] [66] [67]. BarkingMoon and Rlevese also used "punct bef ref" [68] [69] and "recycle" in conjunction with "ref" [70] [71] 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]

      CheckUser note: I cannot speak for behavioral evidence, but technical evidence from the SPI linked to above strongly suggest that BarkingMoon and Rlevse are completely unrelated. Please do not continue down this line of thought without taking that into consideration. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Keegan, isn't it correct that Checkuser is not Pixie dust? My impression is that it can prove someone is a sockpuppet, but it cannot prove they aren't. Rlevse formerly had CU rights so he was aware of how to avoid being caught by it. Just today, in light of this discussion, I came across circumstantial evidence that PumpkinSky used a proxy at one time. Isn't it possible that BarkingMoon may have also been masked through the use of proxies, different computer agents, etc?   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You are correct about all of these questions. We're account specific here, so there's only so much I can say about technical details. What I can say is that the technical details returned from CheckUser make it highly unlikely that this was use of a proxy or a false useragent return. I'm very, very comfortable in saying that this is two different users editing from unique computers without even a veil of shade. I'm confident that BarkingMoon is a different individual from Rlevse. They may share an off-line or off-wiki connection and Rlevse may have educated the user on Wikipedia, but several other CheckUsers and myself found no probability that they are the same user based on the information we can gather, and this matter was extensively discussed when it occurred. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Again without tools, and from someone who joined only in 2009, so has no memory of old stories: Rlevse is on my talk 31 times, 30 of those were the signature of a DYK, the only other (and last) was pointing out that there was a question raised on DYK, you don't have to look it up, the question was if I really wanted a Bach cantata DYK among the Halloween ones. BarkingMoon entered my talk with a wordy lengthy greeting which I keep on top because it still keeps me going. It feels different. Rlevse signed "Peace", BarkingMoon didn't. Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As said above, it is not impossible that the account was shared, so that some edits were made by someone else. But other edits surely do have the Rlevse signature: topic interests (Montana places, railroad pics of Rlevese, immediate desire to vote in RfA/RfB/ban discussion on positions matching Rlevse's), tons of edit identical obscure summaries (plase find another editor matching all those discussed here, or just "punct bef ref") these can't all be argued away because he no longer signed with "Peace". That's extremely myopic. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It beggars belief that different people using completely different computers as you say can produce identical obscure abbreviations in such large numbers. Or that they hold the same rapport relative of a number of other users. Different computer does not necessarily imply different person. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't Mantamoreland use a similar method of having a "completely unrelated" DSL line in another city for his socks after his proxy editing was discovered? I find it very interesting that technical evidence is taken to be an absolute proof of innocence in the Rlevse case. Keegan, you will have to be somewhat more explicit as to what makes the evidence so exculpatory because the behavioral overlaps are similar in nature to those from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Cool Hand Luke. There are in fact more dimensions of correlation here than were presented there. We can even tell apart Rlevse from his wife by just analyzing the edit summaries, never mind topic interests. And I'm sure technical evidence would have the two confounded. I do have the nagging feeling that functionaries are not acting in an unbiased fashion here, and that old friendships are acting as a distorting lens. You can't comment on the behavioral evidence? Seriously? Is that never used in SPIs? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Keegan, noting your unncessary repetition here, and since your statements don't jive with the more nuanced information from the arbs over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, please refrain from threatening the community not to do exactly what it's supposed to do in cases like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "Threatening"? Seriously, what the fuck? I've watched this whole Rlevse issue for a couple of days now, and I consider myself quite apathetic as to who's right and who's wrong here, but both you and Raul have repeatedly misinterpreted comments from various editors disagreeing (or not entirely agreeing) with you to an absurd degree. Please, stop that. There was no threat involved in any comments above. None whatsoever. Saying that there was is just.. weird, quite frankly. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, clearly Conti, since you're an admin, you might not be as acutely aware of how statements like "do not continue down this line of thought" are aimed at non-admins. They generally translate to: if you continue this line of thought, you will be blocked for disruption. Happens all the time, everywhere, particularly at the AN and ANI noticeboards, where non-admins don't have the same right to speak as admins. Yes, it's a threat, because that's how it's often used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, first of all, you missed the part that says "...without taking that into consideration". I think it's pretty fair to take the results of CU's into consideration, and I think that's all that sentence meant. You are, of course, still free to disregard that (You cannot prove the negative, after all, and with enough effort it is always possible to avoid a checkuser), but I think it's certainly worth noting. Anyhow, I am perfectly sure no threat was intended here, and if you are blocked for saying that you think the above mentioned account is a sockpuppet of Rlevse, I will personally unblock you myself. --Conti|✉ 15:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the reasoned response, Conti-- I've been threatened many times, so I probably see it differently than you do, and I remain concerned that Keegan's statements here were strong enough to stifle any remaining investigation and discussion (which is still needed). For the record, I have little doubt that some cowboy freshly minted admin will be drummed up on IRC to block me over this whole matter, I could care less, and I do not EVER want another admin to unblock me when I'm unfairly blocked. If someone unblocks me, that will prevent me from going to the arbs lest they also came under fire. If/when some cowboy IRC admin blocks me for trying to get to the bottom of this, I want to stay blocked, so there's a clean case, no wheel warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, though I remain quite doubtful that you will be blocked over this in the first place. :) Time will tell, I suppose. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)Your statement is a detriment to you. It brings concerns of baiting and pointy editing directly to the fore. That is the danger of overzealous motives, which you seem to have identified. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, baloney-- that I get unfairly threatened based on zero evidence or policy or reason all the time-- because I'm a high profile editor-- is fact. Nothing baity or pointy at all in stating the fact for the record, so that someone won't unblock me if it ever happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      SandyGeorgia, I apologize if you felt threatened. My message was in no way meant to convey that, and Conti has summed up my position well. I don't do hostility or threats. My intention was to note that based on CU, there is nothing. Behavioral evidence stands as the subject. But as this topic has devolved to notice, the BM/Rlevse issue was six months ago and a red herring. I seemed to have sparked a passionate debate that is moot. That was not my intent. Keegan (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      More: "u r": [72] [73], "hey" [74] [75], "rofl" [76] [77], "brit" and "yank" [78] [79] [80], "avoid redir" [81] [82], "after punct" [83] [84]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The behavioral evidence is extremely strong, really. If it's not Rlevse then it's someone who has closely studied and is deliberately copying his editing habits, which seems extremely unlikely. There are many ways to produce false technical evidence to throw off checkusers. I could give all kinds of examples here, but WP:BEANS. Checkuser evidence can't establish completely that an account is NOT a sock of someone else and every time it's a judgement call in reading the results and interpreting them. In the face of obvious behavioral evidence, it is illogical to keep saying that checkuser technical evidence cleared him because that's not possible. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Requests

      1. 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]
      2. 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]
      I did randomly spot a nude model edit from 2008[85] but I only see one edit mentioning Playboy by name,[86] and it's not about a centerfold. Checking the actual centerfold names is hard because they're generally not articles. I don't see many likely ones in the edit comments but I didn't look closely. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Found a few more from early on:

      67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. It doesn't look like a topic of major interest for either account, but from the above and the first 20 or so edits of BarkingMoon, I tentatively conclude that both made minor content additions and gnoming in that area. Perhaps more of a reader than writer role. And both accounts disliked editors who wanted stricter inclusion standards for this stuff, as Geometry guy pointed out above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I checked for Penthouse Pets too. There's not much:

      67.119.12.141 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      By the way

      Since we've been introduced to User:JoJo as the spouse of Rlevse, it's interesting to note that although she tks'd a couple of times [102] and also oopsed twice [103] (although one of those was an oopsy something that Rlevse never used [104] despite using oops more times than I can count), she never ps-ed (same link as before) or "recycled" [105] refs (in the edit summaries). So, even in the family, the edit summary patterns are different between JoJo and the other three accounts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Summary addressing concerns over specificity

      I understand the concerns that "this could be anyone" raised by Gerda Arendt. Granted a single correlation proves little if anything. But have look at the multidimensional one considering Gerda Arendt's edits as the witness:

      String/pattern BarkingMoon Rlevse Gerda Arendt Comments
      "tks" Yes [106] Yes [107] Yes [108]
      "appr" Yes [109] Yes [110] Yes [111]
      "oops" alone 11 of 12 [112] 240 of 296 [113] 1 of 6 [114] Even that is not really alone in GA's summary.
      "hey" Yes [115] Yes [116] No [117] Used on talk pages.
      "rofl" Yes [118] Yes [119] No [120]
      "ps" Yes [121] Yes [122] No [123] Used when extending prior comment.
      "ref seq" Yes [124] Yes [125] No [126]
      "punct bef ref" Yes [127] Yes [128] No [129] Also, a single use of "punct" ever by GA.
      "recycle" Yes [130] Yes [131] No [132] Referring to refs. GA never used the word.
      "u r" Yes [133] Yes [134] No [135]
      "brit" Yes [136] Yes [137] No [138]
      "yank" Yes [139] Yes [140] No [141]
      "avoid redir" Yes [142] Yes [143] No [144]

      Brought to you by ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      German

      In the BarkingMoon SPI Arbitrator John Vandenberg said that BarkingMoon speaking German [145] is an argument against him being related to Rlevse "if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start, with a completely different focus and now demonstrating proficiency in German". [146] I think this was an error in judgement because CheckUser Amalthea stated with respect to the PumpkinSky investigation "I only remember talking to few people in German on my talk page, one of them was Rlevse" [147], a reminiscence brought up by this conversation. So, BarkingMoon speaking in German is an argument for rather than against him being Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I assume this is what Amalthea was referring to. Does that qualify as "proficiency"? I dunno, I don't speak the language. 28bytes (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Amalthea was closer to the truth upon writing "it was probably a native English speaker who also knows German". The aspect that matters to this discussion is that all three accounts – Rlevse, BarkingMoon, and PumpkinSky – used German one-liners to socialize on en.wiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have "used Deutsch" on occasion - and it means absolutely nothing - most literate folks know several languages to that degree. Collect (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, BarkingMoon's and Rlevse's German is about equally crappy. Very, very similar type and level of crappiness, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting. I never talked to one of them. BarkingMoon's German made me smile a lot, still does. PumpkinSky is proficient in understanding and translating (for example Guido Dessauer). - I can't compare, had no time to ever ask BarkingMoon for help with translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Here's more of a comparison of the German stuff:

      • PumpkinSky:
        • [148] "Oder, man kann ein Admin-Freund zu fragen"
        • [149] "sind deine Ohren brennen? Bitte anschauen"
        • [150] "Ich auch verstehe nicht"
      • BarkingMoon:
        • [151] "Guten Tag Gerda. Wie geht's?" [not precisely ungrammatical, but not very idiomatic either]
        • [152] "Sehr geehrte Gerda"
        • [153] "Ihre Arbeit ist grossartig. Weiter schreiben, eien lange Zeit. "
      • Rlevse/Vanished 6551232
        • [154] "Danke"
        • [155] "wider noch einmal meine Fruendin"
        • [156] "Amalthea, ganz gut nicht wahr?"
        • [157] "Am besten, Amalthea auch eine "arbitratorin"."

      All three accounts have the same pattern of using German for socializing with the same wikifriends. All three show the same poor grammar and the same level of unfamiliarity with German idiom, even in the use of simple stock phrases. I'd say it's as compelling evidence of their identity as you're likely to get.

      By the way, if BarkingMoon was Rlevse, then in retrospect I feel rather pissed off about this [158] post, which in that case contained a blatant lie ("knowing nothing about this", said about an old Arbcom case where Rlevse was the drafting arbitrator). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      As a German, I can confirm that the examples listed above are all pretty darn similar, and it wouldn't surprise me if they'd all come from the same person. --Conti|✉ 12:06, 4 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]
      Thank you Alison. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      SPI

      This investigation should be moved to SPI, I think. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Why? So, some Checkuser/Arbitrator can close it again as "disproved" by technical evidence? That was done once before, so no thanks. Let's establish the community consensus on this, after the evidence is presented. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree 100% with ASCIIn2Bme. This was already moved here from AN/I per WP:CBAN, moving it again is just going to confuse people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Concur with ASCIIn2Bme. Too much conflicting information from checkusers, arbs, everyone involved-- CUs asserting as *fact* things that can't be conclusively known, arbs saying when CU evidence isn't clear to let the community decide on behavioral evidence, which is what is happening here. No, keep this open, let the folks examine the evidence (and let admins stop trying to close this off within minutes of new evidence coming to light). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Revise. Suggestion. Folks, editors who are so addicted to Wikipedia that they can't stop socking Will Be Back. The evidence is clear, but the more of it you put out here, the easier you make it for Rlevse to evade scrutiny the next time he socks. I've found several more tells, but I'm not going to say what they are, per WP:BEANS. We've got conflicting info from CUs, the arbs tossing it back to the community, a tight case here that the BarkingMoon account was at least partially operated by Rlevse, and a community of strange supporters who don't want to see the effects of his disruption-- that doesn't matter until/unless the next time he socks. So, I suggest putting out no more evidence now, since that will only make it easier for him to evade scrutiny. I suggest that we're done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I think there is enough by now to prove whatever, though I don't even see what the proof accomplishes. Other sock operators besides Rlevse may have also been helped. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal to tag BarkingMoon as a sock of Rlevse

      This is another one of those situations where someone just needs to go and start the proposal and get it over with, to have a decision made in one direction or the other. So, here we go. Based on the copious amounts of behavioral evidence above and regardless of the technical evidence, I propose that the page of BarkingMoon is tagged as being a sock of Rlevse. Yay or nay? SilverserenC 02:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Extra note: The point of this is really to have a community decision once and for all, rather than letting the above discussions go on forever. If this goes with no, as it seems to be, that's fine, but that also means we can zip up this entire discussion and go work on something else. SilverserenC 06:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't confuse 'loyalty' with a belief that 'a lot of effort is being wasted'. I have no loyalty, but I think the huge amount of nitpicking above does nothing to deal with the risk of future disruption (which I think we all agree IS a genuine issue). Just my opinion though. Manning (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. It's ridiculous that some people are using the claim that there's no tagged sockpuppets to argue he's not sockpuppeting, and then those same people argue against tagging patently obvious sockpuppets like this one. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - It appears to me to be a sock per the KB of behavioral evidence above. Tag it like any other sock. Why should it matter that the account is inactive? If a sockpuppeteer abandons a sock account it is still tagged, generally. This allows people to keep track of sockuppets for months and years down the line after discussions have ended and people with immediate and cleark knowledge of said puppeteer have moved on. Simple bookkeeping, really. Night Ranger (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • lmFao ... sure .. by all means. If it makes the 'pedia a better presentation to the public, then of course we should do this. This indeed would encourage people to join us in building a vast storage of knowledge. All those "this user was banned" tags most certainly would make any new editor feel like we are such a warm and welcoming group of people. whatever. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding, if I may: I consider the user page of BarkingMoon as exemplary: clear, informative, presentable. Readers of his articles want to know about its author and his work, not see a tag. - Everyone concerned can just keep a watch on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 4 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]
      @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]
      • 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]
      • (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. [160] [161] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think WP:IAR should be invoked to use CENT for the spreadingsantorum linking issue because it is more than just another content matter. The issue concerns whether there should be a clickable link to an attack site—a link that would never normally be considered except for the fact that it is an outrageous and novel form of attack, and the target has a certain ability to incite such attacks. The wider community needs to be involved to determine whether WP:BLP is relevant to a case like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the instant you use it for this content dispute, the next one has a precedent, IAR or no. CENT is useful only because it is used sparingly, which is why CENTNOT exists. This is not a fundamental change in policy (or any change in policy at all), nor is it a wide-ranging conduct issue, and so it does not need to be on CENT. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone wanted to start an actual policy discussion, that would be CENT-worthy, but it would need to be somewhere appropriate like WT:BLP and would need to consider why it's ok to link to the godhatesfags website twice from the Westboro Baptist Church page (a website that attacks a large group of living people), to David Duke's website twice from his article (despite its vile anti-semitism), to the website of white supremacist website from the Stormfront (website) page (a websit attacking living people on racial grounds). Oddly none of these links is the subject of massive debate like the santorum case... why does there seem to be far greater concern about an attack on Santorum than by attacks on homosexuals, blacks, Jews, or other minorities? If you want to continue to focus solely on Santorum then I suggest you keep it and the other endless debates on the campaign page (or whatever it is titled next). EdChem (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Yes, I find the interminable debates around this neologism that continue to downplay or ignore Santorum's homophobia and portray him as a helpless victim and ignore the harm he did that led to his being attacked very irritating.[reply]
        • Whether or not he is a helpless victim or you take the position that its his own damn fault for not supporting same sex marriage is irrelevant, the important issue for us to consider in regards to wikipedia policy, is that - WP:BLP seems to me to apply to - and encourage us not to link to external sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person .. that can't be said of broader opinionated sites in regard to groups of peoples such as the stormfront website. As the linking ot such a site is pretty much, totally unknown on en wikipedia, the outcome of this will set a precedent for any future externals created to demean and attack single living people, for this reason I feel the community would benefit from the RFC receiving as broad a notification as possible. Youreallycan 09:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've updated the RFC advice to link to CENTNOT. Yes, this dispute is a big mess. No, CENT is not the right venue for advertising it. But you can and IMO should use all of the other recommended options, such as issuing {{Please see}} messages to all of the connected WikiProjects and BLPN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems a more appropriate way to garner attention than the faux elevation to a discussion about policies (rather than their implementation.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Of note I also placed (a month or so ago), what was interpreted by some as a single page content, a dispute that had already made rounds at a RfC and DRN and was in the process of a second RfC to help gain further community viewpoints. Because it was less with the individual page dispute and more a discussion of applying statistical means to a collection of various data qualified as Original Research that Wikipedia did and had the implication of affecting other "List of XXX by usage" articles I listed the article. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Acheron, Victoria

      Resolved
       – No admin action needed; OP happy.  Chzz  ►  18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      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 [162] and left them a note [163].
      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 [164].  Chzz  ►  01:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks a lot for checking the article. Effectively, I've first supposed to "call" WP:HD but I didn't know the "how-to" in cases as this one. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:54, 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'); [update see below]

      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]

      Update: on advice from User:AlexSm, I have moved the script page to MediaWiki:UploadScriptDemo.js, so it can be tested even without changing one's personal .js. The new method of testing is now:
      Sorry for the inconvenience if you already edited your .js with the old value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      CalTech: Rankmaniac 2012

      Resolved
       – Course instructor has instructed students to not add links to WP. Manning (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      More of a heads up, but CalTech is running a program 'Rankmaniac 2012‎', where students are invited to optimize the Google ranking of a page on Wikipedia. I noticed this morning that XLinkBot is on it's 3RR limit for that page due to persistent spamming of links to that page, edit warring to get a link in/out etc. I have therefore semi-protected Rankmaniac 2012‎, and blocked all the involved accounts (logged in users indef, IPs for a month, the latter because I don't know how long the project will take, expecting that one month should be sufficient). I also went forward and blacklist the links. As Wikipedia is a sitting duck for spammers, I'd think to bring this notice to a wider public, this may not be over. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ugly, and totally agree. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just as a notice, I think it is rather ashaming that an institution like CalTech is using such programs in their teaching. It is all rather innocent, but it does result in their students getting a name as spammers, which, by the collective memory of the internet, may hunt them in years to come. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, but if you feel this way, you should tell them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Err, not sure if that is my responsibility (actually, that is CalTech's responsibility). It would be nice to tell every spammer on Wikipedia that they are not being very responsible in their actions, and that their actions can have severe side effects (in a way, we do warn them, and some of the editors here were warned for that as well), but that is quite a huge task. However, I do believe that it is our task to protect Wikipedia from abuse. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Caltech has very little control over what professors there choose to teach; it's an extremely faculty-controlled institute. --Constantine (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I hope they know that wp pages are all served with rel=nofollow so none of those spam links get page rank. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I deleted the page. Even though the wording was not ultra-spammy, the sole purpose was search engine optimization, which falls under G11. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And salted for a month. Feel free to unsalt if you believe I overreacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a very good call IMO. Manning (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You'd think the organizers would have informed the students that spamming on Wikipedia is both ineffective (due to rel=nofollow) and unethical. Someone should write to them and request them to work with us before the contest commences. ZZArch talk to me 20:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Anyone want to deal with User:131.215.159.157/Rankmaniac 2012 and Burdmi (talk · contribs)? MER-C 05:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I deleted that page and sent an email to their professor, asking him to tell his students to stop. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What is the professor's email address? I would not mind sending an email to him myself. ZZArch talk to me 05:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Professor's email is adamw at caltech dot edu. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I blocked the offending editor and asked him to tell his colleagues we will delete all pages and block all editors until this nonsense stops. Manning (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      See http://courses.cms.caltech.edu/cs144/ – Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I was afraid they would return. Unfortunately, spamming Wikipedia is not ineffective, as suggested above. The rel=nofollow just solves a little part of the problem, it still pays to have your links here. I had a post from someone on my talkpage about this who seemed to have been caught in an autoblock on CalTech. They were inclined to talk to the teacher in person.
      It is good this is just a class, they do not actually earn money with this. About '..tell[ing] his colleagues', don't worry, they will continue until the class is dismissed, you know that the one student that will not stop will get the highest page rank on search engines. As for the students, they should all fail their class, they got caught. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This is unethical and suggests that the lecturer of a course on "the ideas behind the web" doesn't actually understand the first thing about how Wikipedia operates. So much for CalTech being one of the world's leading universities... Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. As far as I can tell, there's no evidence that the professor ever mentioned wikipedia; the report at the top of this section is misleading, or mistaken. Rather, some of the students figured they might make some hay here. Yes, he should have warned them off, but it's hardly unethical if he didn't think of that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that I do say that it is their target to get the Wikipedia page high ranked, which is a wrong suggestion. I think the goal is to get a link highly ranked, but I have yet to see what is the exact goal of this exercise. Anyway, asking students to spam so they will get high search engine rankings for whatever reason, or even supporting a scheme where that is the goal, and whether they are using (the standard sitting duck) Wikipedia for that goal or not (in a way a good choice, it earns you a lot of points for the ranking), is IMHO pretty unethical. This is a very bad considered action, which may have real consequences, and does not shed a good light on CalTech. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Adam Wierman wrote on the 30th of January: "Homework 4 was released today and is now available on the course web page. So begins Rankmaniac 2012... I look forward to seeing all the crazy things you do. (Remember not to get me, or Caltech, in too much trouble though!)" (ref). Well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Emailed Prof. Wierman and explained the issue. Hope he would understand. ZZArch talk to me 07:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I am sure Caltech, despite the place's reputation for pranks, knows where to draw the line (not just in pranks, that is).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem set is here. It is due February 10. Problem 1 on it is to get an image highly ranked on Google or Bing in searches for the phrase "rankmaniac 2012". The instructions do not say to spam Wikipedia; they also don't say to avoid doing so. Cardamon (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it I feel we have been imported into an updated version of Real Genius? Surely it would be the work of seconds for the prof to tell his students to play nice by email.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's worth noting that that several of the students are going quite far beyond just spamming Wikipedia, with botnets, proxies, and various full-on blackhat techniques being discussed. Students at Caltech will often run with projects far beyond what would be considered acceptable elsewhere, even with discouragement from professors, and the network admins here usually aren't too concerned: I once knew someone who used a number of computer lab computers to run a DOS attack in order to censor personal information on a site that would otherwise result in punishment for his house; the network admins asked him to move the attack elsewhere because it was slowing down Caltech's network... --Constantine (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But, as we have already noted, spamming Wikipedia doesn't work. Probably just a few lower-end students trying their luck, because I'm assuming the brightest students should've already known that... ZZArch talk to me 22:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm one of the people at Caltech affected by the IP blocks, by the way. It's worth noting that the students appear to be primarily using the wireless network—as they don't have offices, they don't usually use wired connections. The wireless network is behind NAT and blocking those IPs will have significant collateral damage. Editing yesterday, I had to switch from wireless to the wired line in my office... not too big of an inconvenience, but probably a larger issue for many students. As an aside, I came here to make a simple redirect for Replat, and now I'm posting on AN again. Oh dear... --Constantine (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel that this is one of those newsworthy things. Caltech blanket banned from Wikipedia! Although, if possible, I'd definitely like to resolve this issue privately with the professor in question; I'm still waiting for his response. ZZArch talk to me 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We've only banned editing. If we blocked them from viewing the site until Feb 15, that would seriously get their attention. (Of course I have no idea how we would do that, either technically or procedurally). Manning (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've gotten a response back from Adam, and he's quite apologetic about the situation. He had apparently already told his students to avoid Wikipedia, will deal with that more concretely, and will be contacting people who emailed him about it. --Constantine (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that, I take back my criticism of him made above: it seems that the fault is with his students. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Professor Wierman got back to me and was very apologetic about the whole incident. He posted an entry on the course blog asking students not to use Wikipedia, and also said he will make the same request in person when the class reconvenes on Monday. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Same here. See [165]. I think the situation could be considered resolved by now. ZZArch talk to me 01:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Zzarch, unfortunately, spamming Wikipedia DOES work, it only does not work for your rankings (on major search engines), it still gets your links around on internet which does have an effect in people following them. the rel=nofollow thing just takes out a part that we can take out (well, we could no-index the pages as well), but that part is minor. There are still people writing and selling software to spam Wikipedia, and they don't do that because they don't know it doesn't work, they do it because they do make money with it. The same goes for having your page up here, that page does get indexed (just not the links).

      I'll assume that the students will behave, and unblock the IPs, and shorten the blocks of the users. No need to give them more pain then --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unblock template - user friendly?

      Am I the only one that thinks this isn't user friendly? I know that I occasionally stumble upon someone who hasn't been able to make it work and always have to find an example before I can fix it. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      No you're not :) I've often found that especially for new users unfamiliar with wiki-markup as well as site policy (perhaps explaining their block) the unblock request is malformed. I'd be amazed if we haven't missed a significant number of unblock requests simply because the template has been used incorrectly or not at all. What the solution would be I don't know - maybe a preload template and a button to create the appropriate edit section in block notices? EyeSerenetalk 11:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Like what we have to contest speedy deletions? That might work. And I may be the dumbest admin around, but I have a hard time responding to unblock requests. Maybe I don't do it often enough, but I have to reread and relearn the instructions every time. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I may be the dumbest admin aroundDisputed  Chzz  ►  19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not necessarily, it's not required for sure and if I had every user talk page on my watchlist then I'd have... A lot, I guess. Plus it doesn't do much good, it's not like you can decline an unblock for someone you yourself blocked, so you aren't really the best person to review unblock requests in the first place. -- Atama頭 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally I only watch a small percentage of user's I've blocked, but a lot of my blocks are username-based so they are pretty cut and dried. I really like the idea of having some soret of automatic thing like they have for appealing speedy noms, we just need a coding guru to sort it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Would it be useful to have a prominent link to {{help me}} or {{admin help}} in the message displayed to blocked editors? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't think it matters. Any experienced user is going to be able to use the unblock template. Any inexperienced user is just going to create another account. And unless they do something egregious and so are picked up by checkuser, no one will ever know, so it doesn't matter. Egg Centric 15:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      That is really not the case. Brand new users request unblock every day. You can tell they really are new because of the ridiculous reasons they give for wanting to be unblocked, such as one I just saw today where a blocked user was arguing that he needed to be able to control the article on the company he worked for because his boss told him to. But we do also see a lot of users who badly mess up the unblock request process, failing to state a reason, using he wrong template, that sort of thing. I'm sure this can be fixed, we just need the right nerd to step up and do the necessary coding. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, just found out that my post saying the same thing got caught up in an edit conflict. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But it still doesn't matter. If they don't get a response they will just create a new account, they won't sit around for months awaiting one. Promise you. And any exception to that is so irredemably stupid that we don't need them editing. Egg Centric 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The db-templates have a nice big button, which adds a new section to the talkpage with a pre-programmed part. Would that be an option here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Something like this? User:Madman/Sandbox (Obviously the editintro and preload would need to be tweaked.) — madman 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks relatively moron proof. I think the biggest problem, though, is the way that you can't put whatever you like in the unblock request reason... some things need to be formatted, such as quote marks. How is your average good faith inexperienced user who has done something foolish enough to end up blocked to cope with that? Egg Centric 21:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What do you mean? I just previewed an unblock request with quotes in the reason and see no problem. — madman 22:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Erm, I had a feeling there was a problem but can't reproduce it, and I forget exactly what the problem was. Could someone block me please, using a template (that is important, possibly) or whatever - i.e. use a template block message and so on, cause I'm sure there was a problem with that but forget what it is. Then please unblock me with a note that the block was experimental. Meanwhile, I will attempt to try to reproduce whatever the problem was, on a user sandbox page. Cheers Egg Centric 22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually don't worry about it - I tried a bunch of things and I couldn't produce a problem. I am sure there was a problem once, but it isn't there any more. Have speedy-tagged the sandbox page I was using... Egg Centric 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      So, yes, it's possible, but I predict we'll need a good amount of consensus there's a problem with the current template before we can change it to something like this. AN seems like the right place for this, but maybe the VP also? — madman 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I apologise, I really should have provided the example - see [166]. I've seen editors do this before. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Problem with my user page & Admin dashboard

      While looking for a list of unblock requests so I could fix a broken one, I discovered that not only could I not find it on my userpage where I thought I had it, but that my userpage isn't displaying properly anymore. Can anyone recomment a better Admin dashboard for me? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You could take a look at mine for a smaller example. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I use a simple one on my main user page, but it's more shortcuts than content. I do keep counts of the categories, though, and have a toggle if Snotbot finds bad AFDs. User:Ultraexactzz/usefulitemstemplate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I stole it, Ultra--I hope that's OK. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Noel Ashman

      Noel Ashman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is SALTed, presumably due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman; we now have Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noel Ashman.

      In light of the AfD/deletion log/SALT, I ask admins to check it out, decide if it's acceptable, and please let the AFC creator know (Noel Ashman (talk · contribs)

      Not *quite* sure this is the best place to ask, but due to SALT I thought it might be; wasn't sure where else. Thx,  Chzz  ►  17:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      There's a userfied copy of a deleted version that's had some edits at [User:Todayilearned/Noel_Ashman]. Some of the references in the AFC version are pretty bare but the details can be pulled from the user copy. No clue on if it's viable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Me neither. Input required - we could discuss it right here. Presumably, it's WP:AUTO but still... an article is an article.
      Or if someone wants to BOLDly make a decision - go for it. I guess, if it's 'accepted' (ie moved live), it could always go to AfD again.
      Equally, if someone chooses to 'decline' it and tell 'em why, is fine by me.
      I can't make the call regardless, 'coz of lack of the bit.
      Incidentally, I have not alerted the user to this discussion; wasn't sure that'd be necessary/helpful in this inst, but if someone thinks it is, go for it.
      TLDR is: "I can't 'accept' it anyway, due to SALT, so that's an admin thing. Someone make the call".  Chzz  ►  19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd hesitate to do so. It was salted for a reason. That reason is because it has been deleted 6 times. It was deleted once as spam, then once as a result of an AfD. Then it was recreated and deleted per G4 (recreation of an article deleted at AfD). Then it was recreated yet again, but nobody was willing to use G4 because it wasn't close enough to the version that was previously brought to AfD. So instead a second AfD was run, and it was again decided to delete it. After that second AfD, it was recreated twice more and each time deleted per G4.
      My suggestion is to ask that the notability of the subject be confirmed before we even consider this (through the usual means; multiple significant coverage in reliable sources). I see that we can derive two conclusions from this article's deletion history; that some people really want this subject to be in Wikipedia, and the community really doesn't think the subject meets WP:N. -- Atama頭 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I forgot to mention Noel ashman which shows more deletions of the subject. -- Atama頭 00:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked at the references I could verify in the AfC request (the ones that are online) and they are passing mentions (an article will be about something totally unrelated to Ashman and he'll just be mentioned as the proprietor of some establishment mentioned in the article). I suspect that all of the references are along those lines, which is why this article has been deleted so many times. -- Atama頭 00:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This belongs at deletion reviewwhich is the usual & proper venue for a discussion on restoring a salted article. The afc page can be taken to MfD after that, unless DelRev decides to restore the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chzz has retired/wikibreaked/left rather abruptly so I've been following this discussion. I'm going to go ahead and decline the submission, while pointing out this discussion, deletion review and the AfD. I think that covers everything pointed out here, right? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Query

      I think we're done. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Got an email from a user whose user page I've deleted a few times (it looks a bit silly) who sent me an email to say they want their user name deleted since it's causing them personal problems:

      Hi, i was wondering if you can tell me how to remove or change my username. if possible i would prefer to remove everything so that it cant be searched on Google or wiki. my info has deleted, so thank you. However i was also hoping if you could please remove the user name or just change it to something else and like remove the whole thing. it was a prank and the name isn't real. no one exists on such name and now it has caused problems in personal life. please help. thanks.

      Your advice is appreciated, privately I guess. <sigh>. Drmies (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You can suggest they request a new username, something meaningless as is often done for users who use their RTV. I guess I can't say anything more without knowing the specifics. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks; I pointed them thattaway. I could give more details but I don't want to focus more attention on the matter--though I don't understand the problem in the first place. I think we can safely close this. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      Mirrors will have picked up the page too, and may not disappear so fast. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit warring and personal attack

      Hello there. Please see this user's contribution. The user was warned for breaking three-revert rule but still keeps vandalizing and edit warring our History of Georgia (country) page. And yesterday he/she made a personal attack in an edit summary. Looks like this user is here only for vandalizing. –BruTe Talk 08:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Before I look further ... I'll assume you have actually advised the user that you have reported them here, as per the big orange box when you edit this page? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ooops, I have not looked at it. Thanks. –BruTe Talk 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      One of brute's apparent friends mentioned my mother in a bad context on my talk page in Georgian so I'm the one under assault of couple of editors. They work like gangs, changing my edit one after another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Can you give a diff about that "bad context"? I can't really find it.. And you were warned for breaking 3RR rule but was continuing edit warring. That's all. –BruTe Talk 08:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Move Here We Go Again (song) to Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato song)

      Resolved

      I need an admin to move Here We Go Again (song) to Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato song). I would do it myself but for an existing redirect. According to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Here%20We%20Go%20Again%20%28song%29 and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Here%20We%20Go%20Again%20%28Ray%20Charles%20song%29 the Here We Go Again (song) page is only getting a few more hits than the Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) (6417 vs 4325 in the last 90 days) although many people looking for the Ray Charles song probably accidentally view the former. Here We Go Again (song) should redirect to Here We Go Again. Also many of the viewers at Here We Go Again (song) are probably looking for many of the other songs listed at Here We Go Again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Note. I've requested the deletion of Here We Go Again (Demi Lovato song) to perform the move. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      All done. Graham87 09:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discretionary sanctions on caste articles and more

      Every editor who has ANI oh his watchlist must know this: articles about Indian castes are particularly sensitive. Unhelpful edits and general disruption (POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks etc.) permeate the entire topic area and it is difficult for admins to successfully keep all this in check. For this reason, I'm asking the community to impose the standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages (changed to "pages" from "all articles and templates" on 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)) about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc., explictly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Diffs of assorted disruption can be provided upon request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Edited to specify countries. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Salvio has been chatting with me and others on my talk page. Many of the political parties are caste-based. The classes listed above have been taken from my suggestion. I've no idea how widely the "article" term applies, but I intended it to include related templates also. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have just added templates to my proposal. The reason I included political parties is because Sitush suggested they should be, because they're often caste based, as he says here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Politics is very much linked to caste equations, and I think this sanction is needed there as well. Lynch7 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. While I accept your points about the linkage between caste and political parties, I can't help feeling that this is nevertheless over-extending things a little. Effectively, you'll be putting all discussion of party politics within the subcontinent under discretionary sanctions, and I think we'd need to be certain that this is really necessary before proceeding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Kongu Vellalar has a long history (along with the associated SPIs). Lynch7 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Rajput, for a long time but just since Christmas will suffice for an example (includes socks). - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • General sanctions does not include 1RR unless an administrator specifically imposes it. The two are identical except for the process by which someone is sanctioned. There is a dedicated noticeboard for discretionary sanctions, but that is "owned" in a sense by the Arbitration Committee and community-based sanctions like the ones being proposed here generally are discussed elsewhere if it is not a unilateral decision. NW (Talk) 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine by me, then. I was a bit concerned about 1RR because of the number of new users who edit this type of article, coupled with the availability of admins who take an interest. It doesn't matter how manner notices appear at the top of an edit box, newbies in my experience tend to dive right in there. I can see the day when 1RR might become necessary but it would be nice to feel our way forward here. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I like the concept of "discretionary sanctions", meaning that any admin can unilaterally impose a sanction on someone disrupting Wikipedia after warnings have proven to be useless... And I believe that the community has the power to impose them just as much as the Arbitration Committee... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woah, I am lost now. One person seems to be saying that the two are for all intents and purposes the same, barring a reporting issue, and another appear to be saying that there is more to it. This is above my (non-admin) pay grade but it seems clear to me that some sort of consensus-based clarification is required. I've read both pages and, as with my comment about 1RR above, there are substantive differences in the wording. Help! - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dumber than the average bear: I have remained blissfully ignorant of the whole area of discretionary sanctions, and having read the page linked above, I'm not reassured that I want to continue to work on restoring featured articles to status at the WP:FAR pages of articles like Kolkata until I understand what exactly the issue is. I've been questioning a lot of the text at Kolkata as part of the FAR and there are currently three Indian articles at FAR: would some kind person please explain on my talk page or here explicitly and directly what I have to be aware of and avoid? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm, is what you are talking directly related to castes? :) Lynch7 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        ummm, I don't think so, in the case of Kolkata text, but it could be in other cases, so generally, what is the issue I need to be aware of? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • POV-pushing, usually in an attempt either to glorify or denigrate a social group; edit-warring generally; repeated insertion of unsourced content/OR etc; repeated violations of BLP re: ethnicity/religion; absurd and extreme personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries ... that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you need to refactor this Egg Centric. It's pretty hard to convince users in these articles that we are dealing fairly with them when editors are calling them "primitive shits". Completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A fair treatment for bigots is far more than a block. The misery they create is enormous. I appreciate that a fair number, if not majority, of the peopel they are harming are also bigots, but this is a developing world problem. Of course they are not shits, they are merely primitive peopel acting like shits. The ones who are not primitive are in fact shits, for then they have no excuse. Egg Centric 22:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologise for my levity. I think that AniMate does actually have a fair point. Caste is an extremely difficult concept to grasp if you are outside the system. To those who are then, sure, it has the appearance of bigotry etc but it is a way of life. I do occasionally boil over because (I think, and in the en-Wikipedia sense) I can see the wood for the trees but obviously if you are living in that situation then all you see are trees. My lighthearted comment was inappropriate. I had just had "one of those days" dealing with the fall-out. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support with the caveat that any discretionary sanctions need to be applied carefully, as we have some editors doing great work in that area against the POV pushers and we don't want them chased away. AniMate 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I avoid areas like those in question, yet I still see the fallout from the POV warriors. As mentioned by AniMate, admins should go to some extra trouble when confronted with an established editor who is supporting Wikipedia's principles—rather than a quick block, please tell them clearly on their talk page (without the official warning) that they must stop for a day or two to avoid sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support except that like AndytheGrump, I do not support putting political articles under the sanctions. Yes, some political parties in India are explicitly linked to caste groups, but many are not. To me, that would be like putting US political articles under sanctions because of the existence of the American Third Position Party. As for the general question of why...these articles are just a minefield. The primary problem comes from people in Group X, who want to assert that their Group is descended from high ranking castes, which are themselves descended from high ranking kings, who may very well be descended or related to Gods (this is not an exaggeration--much of the arguments on Yadav (modern group) is whether or not they are directly connected to the Yadava (ancient group) which was mythically founded by Yadu, from whom Krishna is said to be descended). Now, including mythical claims are fine (so long as the mythical connection is covered in reliable secondary sources, and the fact that it's a mythical claim is fine), but the problem is that many editors in these groups refuse to allow anything else in the article, including reliable sources attributing less glorious histories to these groups. Thus, Sitush in particular is often accused of very very heinous things, because he's insisting that our articles actually say what reliable sources say, as opposed to what people may have been taught since they were very young. And there's really nothing we can do in many cases to ease problem editors into Wikipedia's culture; some have, and have become great editors (or at least functional ones), but some are simply unwilling to adjust to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In many ways, the area is very similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in that one's fundamental world view may simply make one unable to interact comfortably with our rule set. Discretionary sanctions will help (if enforced) keep out the worst of the POV warriors, and allow us to more quickly say, "Please adjust, or please find another site to edit on". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Dan Savage

      Resolved

      Can an uninvolved admin close this discussion at Talk:Dan Savage. I think that there is a clear consensus and many people has commented that it should be closed. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Done. Remember that any uninvolved editor may close an RfC, especially one in which consensus is that clear. :) — madman 06:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Was going to close it myself as an uninvolved experienced editor but decided in the end that it wasn't worth the trouble given that an "admin" had been specifically asked for. Dpmuk (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RFPP

      Bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. Was going to do more but have limited time tonight....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I dealt with up a decent handful, still needs attention though. The Trapt one was hilarious, they are certainly tenacious. Manning (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, but I"m going to go be a neutral admin there. I know something about that kind of music, though I know nothing about Trapt beyond once seeing one of their music videos.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On second thought, there's no edit warring or talk page discussion going on and I suspect they can work this out. Unwatchlisting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=475242457"