Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213

WP:RPP...

Resolved

 – not anymore --Jayron32 03:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

...is getting a bit backed up. More admin eyes would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like its up to date. Zero open requests as of now. --Jayron32 03:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to move/create page on my behalf?

Hi

I was trying to publish this page ([1]) when I received the following message:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

* Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. * You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. * Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. * If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

I'm not quite sure what the error is and would like some feedback and help with getting this page published.

Much appreciated, Gloria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionlineed (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 April 2010

It looks like you've written a draft of an article at your userpage (User:Dionlineed), and it seems to show up just fine. It's unclear what you mean by publish, though - do you mean that you wish to move it to a new title? Which specific title gives you the error? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I go about moving this article from my userpage to something publicly accessible on Wikipedia? I can't seem to make sense of the help instructions on my own. Is it a matter of waiting a few days to I get the "Move" tab on my userpage as I've read elsewhere? In the meantime, could you please or someone please review my article to make sure it's good enough for Wikipedia? Thanks! --Dionlineed (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Gloria

It looks like she wants to create Dance International (magazine), but she's getting a message saying the title is blacklisted. Maurreen (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the blacklist message. But I just clicked on the red link and there was no obvious problem.

Glorio / Dionlineed, do you want to try clicking on the red link in my post above, and pasting your text in there? Maurreen (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Or maybe you tried that already, I dunno. Maurreen (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dance International does not exist. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be there? Maybe that's why it was blacklisted? 124.171.194.6 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the blacklist doesnt work like that. It's not "intelligent". In any case, I cant replicate the problem, so I have to wonder if maybe Dionlineed accidentally typed something different at first, and that it was that erroneous title which was causing the error. After all, she never actually said what the title she was trying to create it at was. It's either that, or there's something I've yet to learn about the blacklist. I've posted a link to this thread on MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist just in case someone there might be able to help. —Soap— 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're still here, do you remember the exact title that you typed out when trying to create the page? —Soap— 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem to have created the page at Dance international magazine. —Soap— 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, "Dionlineed" looks a lot like "Dance International Online Editor" which is skirting near if not violating WP:ORGNAME. Anyone who is working with this editor might consider discussing a username change. -- Atama頭 18:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue with Dionlineed, which you could have done, Atama. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:

1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

• Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
• Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Discuss this

linking a foto file to a name in an article

I have uploaded a self portrait of the artist Ernst Hacker to wikicommons the address is - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ErnstHackerselfportrait1.jpg i would like to link it to a mention of ernst hacker [in red] on the page of his friend and teacher Koshiro Onchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kōshirō_Onchi i receive the message contact the administrator can you help pliny13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pliny13 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a Commons matter. The photo is a self portrait which was made by someone who died in 1987. Therefore you could not have made it and it is not your "own work", and as such is a copyright violation. It may be possible to use it in an article on the artist himself under fair use rules, but almost certainly not on the article about Kōshirō Onchi. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On the unwritten rule regarding a limit to number of unblock requests

I would appreciate any thoughts on this here. –xeno^talk 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with your post Xeno. In my opinion the so-called "unwritten rule" is disruptive and quite frankly I've seen it abused too often against innocent editors. Caden ^cool 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, but please discuss there - not here. –xeno^talk 19:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus (talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Action required on geonotice request

I placed a geonotice request ten days ago to invite interested NZers to Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 5. There has been no response to this request. Could an administrator please look into this request? This would be greatly appreciated as the meetup is this Sunday.. Many Thanks. Linnah (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Try inviting people who went last time, but otherwise, there is nothing an administrator could do. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes we've invited previous attendees. Reason for asking here is there's a note in the geonotice page that says:

Notify geonotice maintainers

In case there is no feedback in a few days after posting the request, ask an administrator to take a look.

Hence the note here hoping an admin knows how to notify the geonotice maintainers. Thanks. Linnah (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You might consider pinging someone recently active who appears here: [2]. –xeno^talk 16:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to update MediaWiki:Geonotice.js. I don't know how long it is reasonable to wait to see if the message appears correctly. Someone with experience in writing javascript might like to check what I've added since a mistake could be disruptive.-gadfium 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks gadfium and all who helped get the geonotice going. Linnah (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Help at Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Montenegrin language - There is a giant discussion there, and they are looking for some admin help to come to some conclusions. The first comment was on 14 January. Please take a gander. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP...

Resolved

...Is backed up again. I'm doing my best but the assistance of another admin or two would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just checked in. It looks up to date as of right now. --Jayron32 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C

An issue has arisen at ITN/C over an admin promoting an article they had nominated. This thread is not to be taken as criticism of the promotion by myself, but IMHO the complainant has a point. The talk page of ITN/C redirects to ITN/C, so I'm raising the issue here.

To my mind, good practice would be that an admin who nominates an article at ITN/C does not promote the article to the main page, regardless of how strong the consensus is for promotion. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of ITN/C should redirect to WT:ITN, I'll look into that. Also, for the record, I didn't nominate the article, I just opined in the discussion to kick it off. The issue, for those who are interested, is at WP:ITN/C#MV Moscow University freed from pirates and this is the diff of the addition to T:ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, HJM, you are correct in that you didn't nominate the article. however, this situation shoud be similar to AfD discussions - if you've !voted, you don't do the promotion (or deletion, as appropriate). Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

would like to draw attention to admin instructions at Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions#ITN.2FC. it says Consensus there is not as hard and fast as it is at AfD or RfA, so admins are advised to use their best judgment I think HJ showed good judgement in promoting the item and I don't see written anywhere that admins cant post items they have !voted on. the item has since got additional support.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

would also like to say ITN items are more 'time sensitive'. while AfDs and RfA run for days ITN items can get 'stale' pretty quick. recently we have had a bunch of admins on ITN/C page but there have been times when admin involvement has been low. So giving the admin the ability to !vote and post an item makes sense ( rather than wait for another admin to come along). If we find an admin abusing his privileges (and posting items without consensus) then that can be handled as per existing policies.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of venues which require uninvolved admins on the rush. They manage perfectly well without doing this. Because of that slack practice, valid objections now apparently don't exist if they come in after a quick vote count, where nobody says anything of substance, or gives the slightest indication they know what ITN is for, or how this is an ITN item. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01

There is a dispute which has extended for over a year, and which has spilled over into WP:AN/I several times. This is why I raise this issue here. I started an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BQZip01 nearly four weeks ago. In that time, I've seen considerable activity on other RfCs. However, on this RfC there's been virtually no activity. As it stands, there are no outside views by anyone. The other four currently active RfCs have an average of 7 outside views. I'm concerned that the basis of this dispute remains unresolved. I am not looking for yes/no people. I am looking for input, whatever your opinion may be. You are invited to participate in this RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• One problem with contributing to this RfC is the response BQZip01 added to my question dated 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC):

I believe the Conclusion I offered above provides the most viable interim solution. I am working on an RfC/U at this time with User:Fastily and have ceased any sort of interaction until it has been submitted. I believe an amicable solution can be reached through this process.

Cirt's response to your question states the simplest solution: that you two avoid each other. However, BQZip01 doesn't believe this would work (IMHO, I also suspect that this won't work -- both of you are equally interested in the same matter, so neither of you will manage to do this), so until he proposes his own solution, no one can offer any solution except that you two avoid each other. Which has been suggested already. No, there is one other option: both of you be banned from dealing with Fair Use issues, which is an attractive solution because neither of you will like that, & neither of you can say you "won". -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no desire to 'win'. I brought the RfC to end the dispute, not to bludgeon someone into submission. I'm not after a pound of flesh here. I'm not looking to have BQZip01 blocked for prolonged harrassment of me. I'm not looking to see him warned. I'm not looking to have 50 bazillion people tell him he's wrong. By his own admission, BQZip01 stopped following my edits over the last month . You know what? It's been (not amazingly, but predictably) quiet. If I were guilty of even a third of the things BQZip01 insists I'm guilty of, there'd be a horde of editors breaking down the wikidoor wanting to carry my head off on a platter. Yet, since BQZip01 stopped following me, nary a peep. For me, the solution is really quite simple. I stop following him, he stops following me. I haven't been following him since at least late last year. I've made a few mistakes in that I've responded to him on some occasions, especially when he's followed me. I'm trying not to repeat those mistakes. But, no matter how hard I try, it won't make a difference if BQZip01 doesn't make a similar effort. But so far as he's concerned, such an effort to avoid is against policy.
• If you want to ban me from anything to do with fair use issues, fine. The project will go on just fine without my efforts in that arena. But, 90% of my work here is in fair use because I believe very strongly in the free content mission. I don't write articles, or major updates to articles. I'm just not interested in that, nor frankly very good at it. If I were banned from fair use management issues, I'd just quietly leave the project. If the project thinks that's a 'win', so be it.
• I will say this; if after the RfC ends, BQZip01 resumes his hounding of me, I will continue the WP:DR process. That's not a threat. It's a lack of choices. I can't and won't continue on with having him as my personal adjudicator with no possibility of parole. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Then what is it you are looking for here? Things seem to be working out fine for you at the moment. If I had to choose between (on one hand) an RfC which attracted little or no comment yet peace & quiet from another editor, & (on the other) an RfC which attracted a lot of comment but no peace & quiet from that editor, I'll let you guess which of these pairs I personally would be happiest with. As for resorting to the WP:DR process after this RfC period ends if the dispute continues, that's what you're supposed to do. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering going stale

I initiated this RFC last week, and I'm fairly sure it could be considered "certified" at this point and can move forward, but I'm unclear on whether the filing parties should be making that decision. Anyone want to take a look and either move it over into the certified section so we can proceed or let me know what it is lacking? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks ready, I moved it live. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Praxis intervention

Can someone take a look at this article, and its relationship to this thesis and this slideshow, both apparently written by the same person who created and wrote the article? I don't honestly know what to do about it, if anything -- is it a copyvio?, does it lack notability?, is it original research? -- but it certainly doesn't seem to be the kind of article an encylopedia aimed at the general public would have in it. It's more like the kind of survey article an obscure academic journal might have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are more references to that usage in Google than just the one individual who did that article here, but I can't find any suggestion that it's more than 4-5 people who are actively using that terminology to define a field, which would make it pretty much out on the fringe even if they're practitioners in healthcare in good standing and not thought to be cranks.

Perhaps there are more references out there, if we find more evidence that can be revisited. But I think it's just a few diehard supporters of this model, and it's not really very notable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-used USA radio station codes

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Re-used USA radio station codes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help viewing deleted image

Could someone try viewing this version of the deleted File:DPVAboutBoxWithImage.png? There are two files in this image's history: the newer I've just deleted because it's not in compliance with nonfree criterion F7, and the older (to which the link goes) may be corrupted. While I expect that it's corrupted, I expect that it's possible that my computer is having issues; if you try to view this image, please let me know of the results. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it either. Wierd. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I get a "File not found" message. Perhaps something is wrong in the database. Ucucha 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just get "this link appears to be broken" from my browser. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Unlike text, I believe deleted images are eventually removed from the server, so that may be what happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I just deleted the entire history of the image yesterday — you'll notice that there's only one deletion in the file's log — and anyway I had this problem even before deleting it. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Prior to (IIRC) mid-2006, no deleted image was stored on the server; afterwards, every deleted image was retained. --Carnildo (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I haven't said anything about former deleted image storing. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CAT:CSD stats

tools:~betacommand/reports/csd_over_time.htm is the graph and raw data going back to 2009-10-19 00:10 UTC. Just a few highlights. 27:30:43 is the average oldest item. 2010-05-02 15:10 UTC has the record for longest queue at 145:43:01. tools:~betacommand/reports/CATCSD.html provides a listing of csd items based on when it was tagged. β^_command 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nifty, thank you. I use your listing by timestamp whenever I am sorting through nominations that are not attack or copyvio. Is there any chance of sorting this by category? My impression is that we are pretty good at G10s (I think about half an hour is the longest I have ever seen, with less than five minutes far more common), but A7s can hang around a few days. I think this reflects well on our priorities as a community, and more data is always welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker blocked

I've temporarily blocked CommonsDelinker for the duration of the disruption at Commons to prevent further damage to the local project. Q ^{T C} 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, what damage was being done? I can't see anything glaring at first glance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot is a delinker, it doesn't re-link. While commons wheel-wars over the recent image deletions the bot removes all traces of it from the local project. So even the images that were restored have disappeared from all articles until somebody goes through and reverts all of the affected edits by hand. Q ^{T C} 01:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Julian, see WP:VPP#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content. and the resulting WP:VPR#Re-upload Commons artwork that's been deleted by Jimbo Wales, if you're not up on the current drama. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is thinking ahead too much, but once this settles I wonder if it wouldn't be possible for someone far smarter than I to write something to check all of Delinker's contributions since this began and see which edits, if any, removed an image now-restored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes if it keeps a record of all images it deletes. β^_command 02:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually came here to undo my post. http://toolserver.org/~delinker/index.php ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the block for now so that at least the redlink removals will be consolidated under one account. Instead of a few dozen when users come across redlinked images. Q ^{T C} 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Changes to the User Interface

As many of you already know, the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience team has been running a beta program focused on improving the user interface for over six months now. More details may be found here, but our main goal has been to reduce the barriers to participation in Wikipedia by making it easier for new contributors to edit.

Since the start of the program, over 635,000 users across all Wikimedia projects have participated in this beta program - testing and providing feedback on the new interface. Roughly 80% of the test users who tried the beta are still using it (view details). On the English Wikipedia, almost 270,000 users have tried the test interface and about 84% of those users continue to use it. On April 5, the beta features became the default experience for users of Wikimedia Commons, a wiki similar to Wikipedia that hosts the millions of free image and media files within our projects. The summary of feedback from Commons users may be found here. The WMF blog and the tech blog also provide more information on this project.

This new user interface will become the default for users of the English Wikipedia during the second week of May. We are currently scheduled to make the switch at 5:00am UTC on May 13. Once we make the switch, all users will begin to see the new features [1]. These features include an enhanced toolbar, a new skin (which we named 'Vector'), and a number of other features we're very excited about (FAQs may be found here). If you prefer not to make the change, there will be 'Take me back' link to restore the original features. Those who would like to experience the new interface sooner may do so via the 'Try Beta' link at the top of the page.

We understand that the English Wikipedia relies heavily on custom user scripts and site-specific JavaScript. Information on how to test gadgets is included in the FAQ page. If you encounter issues using the new skin, please share your feedback.

We're looking forward to rolling out the new features next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions/comments, please share them here.

Howief (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation User Experience Team

It would be helpful to have a page with information about which of the most-used scripts - CSDHelper, AdminDashboard, CloseAfD, Huggle, Twinkle etc - are known to work (or known not to work) with the new interface. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I do believe most of the major scripts have been fixed to work in Vector. –xeno^talk 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've been using Vector with many of the common gadgets and scripts with no issues since it hit beta. — Coren ^(talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good. I hope on Thursday morning there will be a prominent notice for the benefit of users who may not have seen this announcement. One thing it will need to tell them is: "If you have scripts in a /monobook.js user subpage, you will need to make a /vector.js subpage (lower-case V) and copy the contents into it." JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The trunk version of MediaWiki has had support for skin-independent user JS/CSS pages (Special:MyPage/common.js and Special:MyPage/common.css) for some time now. It would be nice if someone with the necessary access could deploy that feature (rev:63300 and rev:63338) to Wikipedia before the skin change goes live. (Disclaimer: I wrote the code for that feature, so I may obviously be biased about its usefulness.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ps. Filed as bugzilla:23438. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Did I violate WP:UNINVOLVED?

Can someone please give me their two cents on whether I violated WP:UNINVOLVED by protecting the page Phi Gamma Delta after I had expressed a strong opinion on the issue. I think this falls within the grounds of "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", but I've gotten flack in the past for using sysop powers in a situation where I was involved, so I'm now pretty cautious about when I use them. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It's clear and blatant edit-warring by what is obviously one person on a rotating IP address; absolutely a valid use of semi-protection that "any reasonable administrator" would have implemented. ~ mazca ^talk 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree — I'd be very hesitant to condemn you if you'd been the only one to revert continuous vandalism, but when several other people are reverting the vandalism, there's no question that you did what any reasonable administrator would do. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call, in my opinion. You last edited the article 4 days ago, since when there's been a lot of vandalism which was reverted by other editors. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see the frat I am looking into is getting attacked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems very reasonable to partial-protect even after voicing an opinion in this case under the "any reasonable administrator" bit.

Ktr101 - I don't see it as an attack, it appears simply to be some folk (or a single person) pushing the PoV that the Greek letters should not be used in a WP article, in keeping with the firmly expressed wishes of the fraternity.- Sinneed 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, everyone. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

WOW

So I directly point out vandals after warning them and nobody seems to care. How many times can people deliberately mess up an article before getting IP banned? 10? 20? 1000? No wonder there's so much vandalism here!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why nobody views Wikipedia as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr cleaner upper (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You reported them to WP:AIV immediately after issuing a vague warning—and in most cases without cleaning up the vandalism! I think every report of yours but one has been turned down for insufficient activity or insufficient warnings; the other one persisted in vandalizing well after your warning. Once they were given a final warning {{uw-vandalism4}} and vandalized again after that, I blocked them. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mess up pages on any other website and you get kicked out. For some reason this encyclopedia seems to have lower standards. Fuck this. Have fun letting idiots ruin pages, I'm outta here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr cleaner upper (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef'd the reporting account as disruptive and bad faith. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you do that? This newbie correctly identified several vandals and posted to there page to that effect. He/he didn't quite know what they where doing but it was well intended. The uncivil rant here is hardly a cause to indef block them especially without warning. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tend to side with SunCreator here: common frustration, poorly voiced. Not a reason for blocking.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd like to know why Beyond My Ken thinks it's a possible sock.[3] EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the contribution history: rather than starting off slowly and building confidence, which I think is typical of a newly created account, they came on like gangbusters. It's nothing I looked into very deeply, just a feeling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, it would appear that we may have lost a potential vandal fighter. The newby should have been encouraged and educated, not blocked. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at their reports to AIV, none of them (well, perhaps one) would have been eligible for blocking - they all had 1 or two edits (a couple had 3 or more) and no warnings. The reporter may think that we should block on the first edit that is vandalism, but that is not the way it works - unless it is necessary, we tend to give warnings (I'm typing this in case the reporter reads this) - s/he asked How many times can people deliberately mess up an article before getting IP banned? 10? 20? 1000? - none of these IPs were anywhere near that, almost all of them did it once or twice (and I looked at their deleted contributions too). I feel that the block was inappropriate, and as Mjroots says, they should have been encouraged and educated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked MBisanz whether he would reconsider the block. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Support block. This is a common kind of troll, the overly aggressive vandal fighter. I refuse to believe that someone can go from the sandbox to AIV on their third edit without something odd going on. And follows up this request with a post to this post ANI (again, how do you possibly know how to find this within two hours of editing here). Either it's a troll or someone with such a short fuse at having to follow the basic protocol that either way I doubt they'd last long here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The behavior of this account, doing improper AIV reports on creation and then complaining they weren't being acted on, eliminated my good faith that this was a new user just trying to help out. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I know what MBisanz is talking about because I saw some of the Mr cleaner upper reports, but I don't think an indef is appropriate. For obvious reasons it will cause them to run to another IP/account and just continue, and there's a possibility that they're just an occasional IP vandalism undoer (lots of these most people don't see) that's frustrated and learned a little bit but not the whole picture (our documentation is hard to find). What if we unblocked, left some very clear direction, and then watched them like a hawk. I'd be willing to do the last (let me know if others agree to this) and report back here if there's an issue with that. Shadowjams (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I'd also be willing to explain to him about how to use the templates in the correct way, and when to post at AIV. He'll need to learn to keep his temper in check and not rant at admins for perceived non-action. If there are further problems, the block may be reimposed, for what admins giveth, admins may taketh away. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I again ask, if someone's response to these comments on their talk page is this comment about how "nobody cares!!", what more should be expected? I can't think of any editor who could legitimate move from comments on their talk page to a rant at ANI without something going on. And people can't say this post here then this wave bye-bye isn't at least questionable. Whatever, if the editor is remotely interested in editing here, fine, but it seems like they quit almost 45 minutes before MBisanz even got involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm dropping it, really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, I'm almost there with you (remember I tried early on, I think before this AN even came up, to discuss this) ... I'd say one more chance. But if that chance doesn't work then that's it. Because I think everyone here recognizes that this is clearly someone who knows what they're doing early on (indenting talk comments...). Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams, the editor may have been editing for a while as an IP before creating an account, hence the knowing what they are doing. There are some IP editors who fight vandals. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Aldred again.

Mark Aldred is back as {{Masamako (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Geoff B (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arab Cowboy

Can an administrator please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arab Cowboy and see if socking is going on? This SPI case has been sitting for almost a month, and the filer has objected to my closing it due to lack of activity. In my opinion, SPI cases should never be left to sit indefinitely like this one looks like. –MuZemike 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Open BVE temp history merge

Please could somebody history merge the left-over Open BVE temp into OpenBVE and delete it. —Sladen (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser registration requests

There are requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for approval that are over 48 hours old. Thanks in advance! --Pumpmeup 01:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 What happened to that weekend? Rodhullandemu 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Elena Kagan

According to several major news organizations this person will be nominated to the U.S. Supreme court tomorrow. There are already some forum-style discussions on the talk page. I suspect a deluge of vandalism as soon as the nomination is made. The page was reported at WP:RPP and has been move protected. I am not sure what Wikipedia policy is regarding these types of events but I feel admins should be made aware. --N419BH (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The talk page should be watched as closely as the article for BLP issues and NOTFORUM needs to be enforced. Jonathunder (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with IP2Location link

Resolved

The IP2Location (seen as GeoLocate) link is seen at the bottom with WhoIs tags and others on all IP user talk pages. Problem is IP2Location has been down since Friday (maybe longer). Not sure what the problem is over there but it is effecting on finding out where users are located. This could cause problems for people who are looking for a location on someone for a threat situation or other problem. I request that the IP2Location link be changed to something else (possibly TrustedSource.com) for the time being while the problems at IP2Location.com are worked out. It would at least give us another source to find information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight mailing list moving to OTRS

Beginning 15 May 2010, the English Wikipedia Oversight mailing list will be migrating to the OTRS mail management system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary purpose of this move is to better track requests as they come in, and to ensure timely and consistent responses. This move comes after the German and French oversight lists moved to OTRS in the past year; both have found that it has assisted them in better responding to requests. Over the next week or so, oversighters who have not used OTRS before will be learning the fine points of that system, but the Oversight team will endeavour to maintain adequate responses to the system. The team has also prepared an introductory manual to assist with the transition, which discusses use of both the OTRS system and the Oversight tools.

The major effect on non-Oversighters will be the change in email address to which requests should be sent. When that change is made, we will widely publish the new email address for everyone's information, and we will encourage regular correspondents, particularly recent change patrollers and new page patrollers, to update their contact lists. The current Oversight-L mailing list will remain accessible for approximately two weeks after the changeover; after that, it will become a closed list where oversighters will discuss complex cases or review best practices.

For the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight team,
Risker (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Today's front page image

File:Moscow Victory Day 65th anniversary logo.png has no source and no copyright information whatsoever, as far as I can see. It is protected, but should either be fixed or tagged with {{di-no source}} accordingly. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 07:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, WP:ERRORS is the venue for this, but you've got my attention. It's because it's a temporary upload from Commons, courtesy of User:MPUploadBot. I'll copy the tags over from Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the local version because it's protected on Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair dos, well done! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation (BRD)

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but what does "BRD" mean? (see this edit [4]). I'm not here about the removal of the material, I was just curious if "BRD" stood for something inappropriate. -OberRanks (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Deor (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors who want to WP:OWN articles consider it inappropriate. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That said, that link is actually an example of the ever popular BRRD method.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to the also ever popular BRRRRRRRRRRRBB. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! - let's all take the time here to remember how confusing it all is.  Chzz  ►  21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, "BRD" stands for "Bold, Revert, Discuss" - a suggested method for editing article. We encourage editors to make bold changes, but if another editor removes the edit ('reverts' it), then it is time to stop, and discuss the matter with that person and other editors, to try and form a consensus. This avoids edit wars.

I'm sorry to say that we Wikipedians use these 'in-house' acronymns far too often. If you ever come across another, try typing "WP:" followed by the letters into the Wikipedia search box and hit the enter key. For example, if someone writes "COI", type "WP:COI" in the search box and you will be linked to the page on the conflict-of-interest policy.

And no, this isn't the right place to ask - next time, put {{helpme}} on your own talk page, followed by your question. Then again, we like to IAR.  Chzz  ►  21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve Smith and plagiarism

See here. I would prefer to have discussion centralized there. Steve Smith (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Grundel Guard and Grundle Guard

Please delete Grundel Guard and Grundle Guard; these were created as frivolous redirects (to Helmet) by a vandalism-only account (User: Yohann4) several years back, and were not caught in all this time! In case you were wondering, grundle is a slang term for perineum, which clearly indicates that neither redirect was legit, and that both were simply vandalism. I have since blanked both pages and ask that they be deleted.Stonemason89 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just tag the pages with a speedy deletion tag and they will eventually be bagged. This thread really isn't needed as this is for urgent matters. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, will remember that next time. I was not aware, prior to this discussion, that non-admins had access to speedy deletion templates. Thanks for clearing things up!Stonemason89 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about AGF and Userpages

An editor whom I won't name (unless I am required to do so) has a list of editors on his user page, all of whom have apparently crossed him at some point. His wording is as follows: This is a list of editors I've observed or interacted with who are actively detrimental to Wikipedia. Most are unabashedly pursuing their own agenda, but a few seem to think they're contributing when they're actually being destructive.

I am not on this list, but it does include a couple of decent editors that I know. Is this kind of thing allowed? It seems to me to be an unsubtantiated attack on a number of editors who have no right to reply, and it hardly assumes good faith. I'd be interested to know what policy might be on this. Apologies if this is in the wrong place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Such lists are pretty disruptive, and counter to the spirit of colleageality which is supposed to prevail here. Since the editor is retired anyway, I've been bold and deleted the list. (If the editor wishes to keep such a list, it can easily be done off-wiki without disruption.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll go further than that. Such lists breach WP:NPA. Who is the editor in question? Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it! EeepEeep (talk · contribs), who claims to have retired at 23:59 on 7 May 2010. If this editor remains retired then no further action is required. Should they revert the deletion of the list, then they should be blocked for WP:DE, warning or no warning. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While the editor claims to be retired, they are still editing mainspace pages and talk pages to argue against a certain page move (see Talk:Newman/Haas/Lanigan Racing#Requested move). Right now their attitude is starting to become a little uncivil... TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of list has been reverted. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I should add that that I am no longer uninvolved with this editor, since I am arguing against his obstruction of the above-mentioned page move. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Enemies lists" are not allowed, so I've zapped it and advised him not to put it back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well he is spot-on with a name or two in there, but yea, we can't have this. What's the procedure here, block until hr agrees to not restore it, or just goto MfD? Tarc (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's always a matter of opinion, as some editors get along with editors that others' don't get along with. If someone wants to maintain such a list, there's nothing from stopping them from doing so - on their own PC. But that would defeat the purpose, which is to slam somebody. Now, if he were smart, he could have maintained the list with the heading, "My Favorite Users", but again that would defeat his purpose. In any case, he hasn't edited since yesterday, but if he does it again, I think a lengthy block is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I hide my list in plain sight at Enemies list ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! So he had a few wikipedia editors on that list, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This thread has just been brought to my attention. Much to my surprise, I was on the list; thanks to those of you who found it and deleted it.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. So is my watch list a violation? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an enemy's list? IMHO, it looks like a summary of a random moment from WP:AN/I. If you want a real enemy's list, you have to increase the vilification & make it sound like you're watching them because they're going to do evil -- not as if they need help. -- llywrch (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Manufactured evidence of COI

Hi I'm Becky Northey, I edit on Tree shaping article and there is a section on my partner and I. The issue of COI was brought up to SilkTork *^YES! about my editing on Tree shaping. He responded by removing the COI tag stating "The COI is not clear" here is the diff

Duff has edited the section about my partner and I, adding references from a site (treeshapers.net) that he knew I created. After having done so he accused me of quote "your site....disproportionately represented in the references section". Here is a brief version of my reply, Duff you have added 11 links to the site, not me. Finishing with "Don't make changes and then say goodness me it's too heavily weighed this way. Please don't do this again." Here is the Talk:Tree_shaping#Methods link, please go to near the bottom of this section where Duff Oppose my suggestion.

(I'm summarising here) He accused me of manipulating the article to my own benefit again here. I had reposted my earlier comment in case he missed it in the length of the talk page, asking him not to do this again.

Tonight I went though the history and found the page, were Duff created the evidence. Here is the diff last block of red text. In Duff's next edit he adds the same reference multiple times in our section here. Here is the page before [5].

Duff has an agenda to reinstate the article back to its original title. Even though multiple editors at different times have stated that the original title was not neutral. Duff has manufactured evidence, to prove I have a COI. Blackash have a chat 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest applying Hanlon's razor, and just getting back to discussing the article. Yes, Duff made a mistake, and yes, Blackash has a COI (simply by being part of the article's topic).

No admin action is needed here. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It was no mistake but part of a planned tactic, to bring into question the validity of any information that I have or will find about Tree shaping and associated issues. Blackash have a chat 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading the tag at the top, is this the appropriate forum for this discussion? This is the first time I've dealt with such an action, so I'm not sure if I'm expected to respond or not. Planting evidence is a pretty serious accusation. It is also an unbelievably clever and wickedly ironic pun, in context. My agenda is better writing, a better article, and a better Wikpedia. I prefer to work on just the article and I continue to seek consensus at Talk:Tree shaping on a variety of apparently-contentious issues, including now the precise nature of my stupidity. I sincerely apologize for any good-faith-based misunderstanding, which I am prepared to assume is what has occurred. I am also prepared to fully defend my own good faith in the appropriate forum, if we truly need to spend that time in that way.Duff (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackash has confusingly interleaved her later comment here before my response, with incorrect indentation, and in the wrong forum for such a dispute. It contains another serious accusation, both of which are also posted on the talk page for the relevant article. Both are untrue. I want both accusations retracted and the matter resolved in whatever manner is appropriate.Duff (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is frequently misunderstood. Some editors feel that if someone has an interest or association with an article topic that is a conflict of interest. It is not. It may be a "potential" conflict of interest, but we would need the mind police to discover someone's potential intentions, so we look at the actual edits rather than any assumed intention. Most Wikipedia editors have a potential conflict of interest as we tend to work on those articles whose topics connect with us in some manner - we write about the place where we live, the writers, musicians and films we respect and enjoy, our own areas of expertise, which includes our own occupation or academic subject area. We invite experts to write for Wikipedia, and experts in a field may be expected to hold their own biases or personal enthusiasms. However, we also expect from all Wikipedia editors a certain degree of responsibility, and an awareness of our core policies. Mostly, people do conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. Yes, there is some bias - particularly Wikipedia:Systematic bias - but we are aware of that, and we try to deal with it individually and collectively.

Of more importance, relevance and accuracy than trying to second guess someone's intention is to look at the article in question to see if the article is promotional in nature, or biased. When I was involved in the article I felt it was proceeding in a mostly neutral and factual manner - though there was a slight cause for concern over the use of the word "arborsculpture" as that word was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with him and his books. However, examination of the evidence showed that the word was also being used by some sources as a generic term for tree-shaping, so limited and careful use of that word was acceptable. However, caution needs to be applied and a watch kept on Tree shaping and related articles to ensure that there isn't inappropriate over-use of the term.

Other than keeping a weather-eye on the use of the word "arborsculpture" I agree with Quiddity that there is nothing else here that is cause for concern. SilkTork *^YES! 08:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on LS

• Note The below discussion is quadruple nested, you must click 'show' four times to be able to review it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Drama over. Okay, now we break out the Lolcats

Public interest note: the below discussion is triple nested, and requires clicking 'show' three times to be able to review it. Larry Sanger is not a troll, but apparently this unique method of archiving is required to deal with a proposal to ban him. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) This discussion can be restarted by anyone at any time if they think it truly merits more discussion (but please, not just to vent). If someone does restart it, I suggest we move it to an AN subpage. NoSeptember 12:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I think the kittens and puppies and triple nested archiving is evidence that discussion of the merits of the community banning of a common or garden troll, is not simply going to be allowed to start, let alone allowed to restart. The issue will just remain unresolved as an open sore on the project, like a few other perma-problems AN/I never deals with. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Drama over. Okay, now we break out the puppies Drama over. Look at the kittens since the puppies are all sacked out from a long day Drama over. NW (Talk) 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) The actions of LS in regards to Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia and the alleged omission of "pedophiles operating on Wikipedia" has been subject to community disapproval. In light of the recent indef block for disruption and subsequent unblock of LS, I am putting this matter for community discussion. Personally, I have no opinion on this issue. Please discuss. —Dark 02:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I think a topic ban on articles about Wikipedia should suffice. He's obviously ignoring WP:COI by insisting that his own criticism (even if reproduced by mainstream media) should be included in some article here. Pcap ping 02:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Lets not escalate this pissing match.--Tznkai (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) With Pcap on that -- topic ban him from Wikipedia-related articles. That is, unless there's evidence that he's causing problems elsewhere. He seems to have a clear axe-grinding mission on Wikipedia-related articles. Equazcion (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose - When you're in a hole, stop digging! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I have an opinion, and it's this: another fucking disgrace. When will you clowns ever learn that the way to deal with criticism is not to suppress it? Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC) You mean the same way you've learned that the best way to convince people is to insult them? We can't all be that quick to learn sir. Equazcion (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I mean the same way I've learned that arse-licking deceit is the only currency of value here on wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I see no evidence that you've learned that. Equazcion (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Stay on topic please? What Malleus did/did not do is not relevant. —Dark 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I sure hope not. I'll be brief: Wikipedia should be open to criticism, even on the site itself, since external criticism often isn't taken well by Wikipedia editors. I hate this "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) No no. Lets not play that game. This isn't about "criticism," this is about a grudge.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC) This isn't even about a grudge, it's about a competitor slinging FUD allegations of felonious acts by Wikipedia as a way of promoting his competing project. Unfortunately, a siteban won't fix this, and the press will just use it as an excuse to bash us, so it would be counterproductive. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)  Note: I can already predict in advance that this thread will not be productive or end well. MBisanz talk 03:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC) We really ought to just close it now... NW (Talk) 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Hell, I could predict that just from the thread title. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) What's going on at wikipedia? Jimbo is almost desysoped, and now that... Oppose the ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe the founders should stop acting like they still own this place? Pcap ping 03:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe some administrators ought to consider the wisdom of extracting their heads from their arses once in a while. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose Horrible idea, unless we want a Fox News report on Monday turning him into a martyr to a cause, "S objected to Wikipedia hosting child pornography. The project responded by banning him permanently". All this accompanied by pixelated images from Commons, interviews with outraged experts from Family Research Council, Jimbo and Foundation donors being asked to explain their support of (child!) pornographers, and FBI spokesmen questioned on whether a formal investigation has been started. Are we ready to let pique and lack of common-sense sink this project ? Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Strong support. --Larry Sanger (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) What a pile of shite; We are a free content encyclopedia. This does not imply any form of free speech. In particular, we do not, and should not tolerate, any form of disruptive editing that is only directed towards making political points. That is why I blocked User:Larry Sanger indefinitely, and I thought I explained why I had done so, in the clearest possible terms. However, my block was reverted, with no particular reason being given for the continued reason for his input here. If you do not want me to continue to be an admin here, please make it plain; otherwise, please feel free to take the appropriate steps. Rodhullandemu 04:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I do not want you to be continue to be an admin here Rodhullandemu. Uncle uncle uncle 04:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I DO want you to continue to be an admin. I just don't want you to indef block Larry Sanger. The project can take the criticism. Or, if it cannot, that would be good to know too. Lar: t/c 04:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I do not want you to be continue to be an admin here Rodhullandemu because I see no understanding that the block was wrong--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I do want Rodhullandemu to be an admin around here cause Larry Sanger has tested the patience of Wikipedians with his run to Fixed News and his lying we support child porn. That is some shit we hear out of ED members, not our own. His disruptiveness needs to go and fast. I wholeheartedly agree with with Rodhullandemu's block of Sanger as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Well, if you don't want me to continue to protect this encyclopedia against abuse, from whatever direction, please take the appropriate steps. We are here to provide knowledge, and I stand by my record on that. I think it stands up to any analysis. Up to you. Rodhullandemu 04:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Support community ban. The guy is a boring troll. At least the other trolls around here who waste hours of other people's time, contribute articles once in a while. While he is actively disrupting articles to further his own agendas, there is not a single reason he needs an account here, he has more than enough places he can spread The Truth and Fight the Good Fight. He doesn't want to be here, we don't want him here, a community ban is a win win situation, and the encyclopoedia certainly benefits. Everything else is just noise. P.S. Loving the kittens. Very relaxing for a Sunday lunchtime. MickMacNee (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC) So Critic = Troll to you? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC) He went past "critic" a long time ago. He is a troll, by anybody's definition. MickMacNee (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) m:What is a troll? is good reading too. Admins can passively aggressively silence this discussion by triple nesting this thread with all the kittens and puppies they like, they are not acting in the best interests of this pedia by preteding this guy is not a troll deserving of a community ban. Rod for arbcom tb, who have banned many a troll like Sanger in the past, and where Sanger will probably end up if normal admins don't get real pretty damn quickly.) MickMacNee (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose Criticism is far different than trolling. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC) I'm unhappy the kitty snaps have been hidden/nested/whatever. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Me too. The kitties demand justice and equal treatment, not to speedily hidden under dogs! Pcap ping 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Check the image on the right.©Geni 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC) heh, at first glance of the small version I thought that was a dog wearing a tux--Jac16888Talk 18:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I propose a community ban on those animals. They are too cute, and must be punished.Love, →Nekami 20:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Support ban of the first and third...the other two show true community spirit! Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (engage offtopic/silliness warp drive) Only the 4th shows the true spirit of wp:NPoV! ...though ...arguably the image is still slanted to favor the puppy, as it has much more coverage in the image and thus lacks balance. ;0)~ There is probably also some nefarious plot by left-handed admins, as the feline is on the LEFT paw of the canine. *disengage*- Sinneed 22:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) If you feel the dog's viewpoint is disproportionately represented you are of course free to improve it. Wikipedia is the collection of puppy and kitten images that anyone can edit! - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I think it is time we stopped using either Seth Finkelstein or Cade Metz as sources for commentary about Wikipedia as both have a long-standing agenda against the project and very clearly selectively use only those sources that support that agenda. Guy (Help!) 01:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Are you suggesting we use LS as a source instead? Otherwise, I don't see how your commentary is related to the topic above... Pcap ping 04:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales desysopped ?

Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I was just reading the news bar on BBC World and read something about Jimbo Wales' user rights being revoked because of the way Wikipedia covers porn or something in this direction (the message was not so clear to me). What is this all about??? Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so - not here, anyway [6]. There is more on this at the pumps (where it probably belongs), e.g. Wikipedia:VPP#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content. –xeno^talk 15:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That link doesn't seem right (Wikipedia:VPP#New Commons interpretation of policies regarding sexual content.). Maurreen (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That was more in regards to Count Iblis' question "What is this all about???" - I figured he arrived late to this party and wanted to see who spiked the punch bowl. –xeno^talk 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame. This thread title got my hopes up. Resolute 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet read the BBC story (just got online and haven't looked for it). The summary is that there's been a big row at Commons over pornographic images, and there were questions and complaints raised about my specific actions there. Because I don't think that's worth fighting about, I voluntarily removed all my powers to actually *do* anything using the "Founder" flag. Instead of focusing on that, what I want is to drive forward a healthy discussion about the reform of Commons policy so that it is no longer abused as a free porn hosting facility. That's not an easy discussion to have, for a number of reasons. But have it we must.

I am still an admin here in English Wikipedia, and nothing about that is changing. By my own pledge, I do not use block powers here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, just when I was going to suggest that you donate your mop to the Smithsonian. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to see you have respected the community on this, Jimbo, and even happier that rash action has finally given way to rational discussion. Wikimedia has tended to get those actions backwards in recent times. Resolute 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

[7], read the box at the top--Jac16888^Talk 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/12/wikipedia_is_censored.html article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes (well sort of), Jimbo resigned all of his global "founder" rights associated with active powers (delete, protect, block, etc.) as a result of m:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag, the conflict on Commons, and discussions on Foundation-l. He retains the passive powers (e.g. view-deleted). He separately remains an admin on this wiki, but no longer has that power globally. Dragons flight (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, did you mean to post an from article December 2008? Perhaps you meant this one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• He globally turned off much of what the "founder" bit allows him to do as to content, but still has the bit itself. He still has technical accesss to quickly turn it all back on himself. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No he doesn't. The power to edit his own rights was subsequently removed a few hours later at his own request. Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I removed it all myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Isn't this what dragons flight meant?--Jac16888^Talk 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, until Laaknor's action Jimbo still had the ability to edit his own rights through the sysadmin flag. Dragons flight (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Missed that, striken, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You can see the logs here [8]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is the current BBC article Dispute brews over pornographic images on Wikimedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Wow, a mainstream news article about WP that does not make me rage with inaccuracies. I think I may actually pay my licence fee this year. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It's cheaper than the Sky tax ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jimbo - you are spot on with this. A child's right to be free from abuse trumps any other consideration in this debate. If a so-called "consensus" develops that protects those who would bring harm to children, then the consensus should be broadened to include those who might not normally concern themselves with these issues. Ronnotel (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • And if a consensus develops that pictures of bestiality, sado-masochism, hard-core porn and so on should be hosted on wikimedia servers in vast quantities and without even the basic disclosure and licensing requirements (certification the subjects are over 18, gave consent, etc...) user to regulate the porn industry, what then? Do we learn that this is an ungovernable asylum, or do we learn that it needs a dramatically different governance structure? What's your next move then, Mr. Wales? Throw your hands up and accept the will of the pseudo-libertarian rabble The Community?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronnotel child porn is not the topic of this debate. Commons has a fairly good record of acting against that.©Geni 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? From the article linked to above: "The page . . . has been blocked because it includes an image of a controversial album cover. That cover shows a naked child, and even back in the 70s it proved too distasteful for many, and was withdrawn in a number of countries." Ronnotel (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronnotel, the Virgin Killer album cover (which has never been found to be illegal anywhere) is not what the current shenanigans are about. Read the current BBC story linked above, which relates to mass deletions af a wide range of images, including historic artworks, from Commons. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I really, really, REALLY don't feel like being in the middle of a Wikipedia Coup d'état. Also, I think He's in the right- Commons is a valuable source for free images... legal, tasteful (Or it should be tasteful), images. --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reality, unfortunately, is not always tasteful. Also, what is tasteful and what is not varies from person to person. We should document reality according to reality itself, not censoring it on the basis of our taste. --Cyclopia^talk 00:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, reality for instance also includes images of gangreen and of blown up soldiers in wars. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, and images such as these are both completely tasteless and demeaning to their subjects, yet appear to be essential for some admins closing noticeboard threads. DuncanHill (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless your post is intended to be satirical, which I don't see, "taste" is a matter of personal opinion and preference, and the idea that kittens have "rights" that can be "demeaned" is just ludicrous. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear god, yes it was meant to be satirical, and was a reference to the recent silliness from admins closing the proposal to ban the other-co-founder. I would add that I never suggested that the kittens' rights were demeaned, rather that the kittens were demeaned. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't have a lot to do with the uploading of endless pictures of users' own genitalia, or pictures of sex acts with people of uncertain age which are not used on any Wikimedia project. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, genitalia! Whatever will we do!? Badger Drink (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Guy is saying that editors should upload pictures of other people's genitals, not their own. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No- I'm pretty Sure Guy is saying that there's no educational value of uploading these images- especially if they are of questionable legality. --Rockstonetalk to me! 00:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid pointing out that Guy was poisoning the well by his implication that all the deleted images were either uneducational, illegal or unused in projects. I made a little joke in the interest of trying to calm things own. Hey ho. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is he saying that? Surely, in penis, it makes sense to have an image of the real thing, circumcised and uncircumcised, to illustrate the difference in an educational context? The real difference arises when we attempt to depict an immature penis, from birth, through development and puberty, to adulthood. Medical textbooks don't have a problem with that, but we are not a medical textbook; traditional printed encyclopedias also shy away from crossing that bridge, but they are generally targeted to "family" audiences. The question is whether we should be honest about the world we try to reflect here, or apply censorship, for whatever reason; and the day we do that is the day I quit here. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not referring to those instances- rather, I'm referring to shock images- images that will never be used- and images illegally depicting minors. Images that have little or limited Educational value. --Rockstonetalk to me! 00:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Which we already can and do get rid of. Unfortunately, Jimbo and some of his cheerleaders decided not to bother to check if images were being used appropriately and just went on a deletion spree, accompanied by a threat from Jimbo to desysop admins on Commons who objected. DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets not be hypocrites here. Commons hosts thousands upon thousands of images of no educational value unrelated to sex - including hundreds of images of editors themselves. This purge had nothing to do with lack of educational value, and everything to do with the perception of a certain segment of the media within the United States, and how certain people within Wikimedia reacted to that perception. Also, as much as people like Guy would love to obfuscate the reason for the outrage at Commons and other projects, it has very little to do with removing porn of no educational value, and a lot to do with the incredibly poor judgment Jimbo used in indiscriminately deleting large blocks of images without checking for value, wheel warring over it, effecting policy change by fiat without the support of either the Board or the community and threatening to take the bit from those who were willing to challenge him on it. This entire controversy would not have existed if Jimbo had gained the support of the board on his policy change then entrusted the qualified admins at Commons to do the clean up properly. Certainly Jimbo and the project would have come off looking much better than they do now. I'd be willing to bet that if this was handled properly by those at the top, there would have been a high level of support within the community. Resolute 01:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I understand a bit better what is going on. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• There's not much press coverage of this (yet). There's a self-congratulatory Fox News article [9] on start of the purge, followed by another saying not enough was done [10], and a more balanced take one in heise.de (in German, of course). The BBC [11] and El Reg also covered it [12] more recently. Pcap ping 04:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of actual content, the right stuff has been happening. There's been substantial activity on deletion review, and most of the Wales-deleted images that were actually used on the English Wikipedia have been restored. Some, by consensus on DR, remain deleted. The stuff that was unreferenced junk remains deleted, mostly due to lack of interest from anyone wanting it restored. That's a reasonable outcome from an operational standpoint. The Fox News problem remains, but that's a fund-raising issue. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of the right thing happening... by means of entirely the wrong process, whereby a lot of "casualties" occurred. Jimbo took the Aliens (film) approach of "Nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure." Which also deleted a bunch of relevant medical images and historical artwork. Ooops. So, the stuff uploaded purely for using Commons as a webhost for personal self-indulgent porn got deleted, but a bunch of relevant files were deleted in the process, which must now be restored. Jimbo then gave up his Founders rights on Commons due to the backlash; the damage is done though. Now we've got everyone arguing over the entire Wikimedia system of governance and editing. Personally, I've retired my account for now. A number of things in the last year have left a bad taste in my mouth, and this was just the last straw. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
• Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
• Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
• Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
• Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
• Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Letting admins find which page names are banned

• Please, useful would be an easy way for an admin to find if this or that page name is restricted, and why (e.g. HAGGER because of the HAGGER move-vandalism nuisance). Currently, the only suggestions that I have heard of are:
  • Keep a non-admin sockpuppet: that would cause complications.
  • Wade through the text of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLACE - use modern names.

Hello. I want to report a rule violation on article Darjiu. Disruptive edits are :[13], [14] and [15]. As it can be seen i spoke with this user several times[16], and explained the situation but he refuses to acknowledge it and respect the WP:PLACE section use modern names that clearly addresses this matter. If somebody can clarify this situation. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You want WP:DR, not here. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

username block discussion

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#problem with the way username only blocks on promotional accounts are being handled. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Airliner terrorisms and crashes, described in a page named after the flight number

• In Talk:Air India Flight 182#Requested move#Requested move is a suggestion to move Air India Flight 182 to Kanishka bombing, with a reason "The article is about the bombing of the flight on 23 June 1985 and not about the flights on the Montreal-London-Delhi-Bombay route in general.". I am tempted to agree; an Air India Flight 182 likely happens every day, or every week, or something of that sort (to state which, I would need to see the flights timetable), and that article is not about those flights in general, but about an incident that happened on that one occasion.

  Similarly for other airliner terrorisms and crashes which are described in a page named after the flight number.

  This seems to be where we run into a query "what does the singular mean?" about various transport words:

  • Flight:
    1. One journey of an airliner from place A to place B.
    2. The sum of such journeys of an airliner from place A to place B, as happening at the same time on various days and listed in one place on a timetable.
  • Train (railway):
    1. A set of locomotive and carriages.
    2. One journey of a set of locomotive and carriages from place A to place B.
    3. The sum of such journeys of such journeys of a set of locomotive and carriages from place A to place B, as happening at the same time on various days and listed in one place on a timetable.
  • Etc.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems extremely sensible. I'm not even convinced there should be a redirect from the original title. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is no point even discussing it for any article in my experience. The aviation incident naming convention has reached almost cult-like status now, to the point where the mere possibilty of using a COMMON NAME, or even user friendly guessable descriptive form, is simply verboten for 99.99% of aviation incidents. The pros and cons have been debated on nearly every high profile incident article, because a Requested Move is usually the first post on their talk page. You would think that would clue people in, but the usual pro argument is never more nuanced than 'redirects can handle everything else', and 'it is super cool to have a naming convention', while it is quite hard for the con side to actually lay down exactly why readers do not find this convention to be of any use at all, in concrete policy terms, even though they know that readers hate it, and it only exists primarily for the convenience of editors, who don't seem to get that utility of redirects is not an argument that supports either side. I had hoped attitudes might have changed now the other high profile topic specific convention that I know of, titles in royalty, has been rightly depreciated for common names, but no, it is as immoveable as ever. We might as well elevate it to policy right now, on the principle that policy describes practice, not the other way round. MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion misses the basic fact that following major aviation accidents and incidents airlines consistently change the flight number. There is no ongoing AI 182, indeed AI's website doesn't even list Montreal's Trudeau International Airport as a destination anymore. The common name for the event used in the press, Air India bombing is of course ambiguous, even for that specific day, but it redirects to the article. The idea that Kanishka bombing would be an improvement hinges on the rather silly presumption that readers will know the aircraft's specific name, "Emperor Kanishka". Until today I did not, though the event has had regular and extensive media attention for years. For those few that do know this name a redirect is the answer, not a page move.LeadSongDog come howl 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't ignore it, it goes to the heart of it. Some numbers get retired, some continue to be used, but that's totally irrelevant to the name of the article - but it is why if you pick any random incident article, you will usually see someone has more often that not tried to stuff in info in the first line about the 'status' of the flight number, as if that's remotely relevant to the first line, or even the lede section, of the article. That's one of the many drawbacks of this convention, because try as you might, there will be plenty of readers who cannot read an opening like Air India Flight 182... in any other way. The fact that Air India bombing redirects to that article, yet you assert it is ambiguous, shows yet another drawback of the convention. The convention derived title neither makes it clear they are at the right bombing article, if it is ambiguous, and neither does it reflect the counter situation, should it be the case that there is an overwhelming common name for an Air India bombing. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thumnails uploaded to commons

Could an admin please restore File:Krystian Zimerman 2004.jpg and File:Lumholtz's_Tree-kangaroo.JPG thx --DieBuche (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would you need File:Krystian Zimerman 2004.jpg when File:480px-Krystian Zimerman 2004.jpg is already at Commons? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Same with File:Lumholtz's Tree-kangaroo.JPG and File:488px-Lumholtz's Tree-kangaroo.JPG? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently cleaning up images of which only downsized thumbnails were uploaded. These two were uploaded under a lower res. at commons than their original.--DieBuche (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I see. Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, files are now properly uploaded at commons--DieBuche (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Same please for File:Jackson and Weatherford.jpg and File:Cinderella.png--DieBuche (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Jackson and Weatherford.jpg is done but File:Cinderella.png was deleted for a lack of source. Do you have the Commons image so I can see if it's the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File:754px-Askpott Cinderella.png This one is unsourced as well on commons; I'm gonna add a DR. I think someone deleted Jackson...jpg before i could transfer it.--DieBuche (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more File:Balzac bust by Rodin1892.jpg, File:Rochester cathedral stained glass 1.jpg & File:PBB Protein KLK4 image.jpg (and File:Jackson and Weatherford.jpg again please, i wasn't fast enough to catch it)--DieBuche (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All four are ready. Sorry about deleting Jackson and Weatherford; I was cleaning out the F8 deletions and didn't realise that it had just been undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks, those are finished--DieBuche (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam backed up

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam is backed up. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RM Backlog

As usual, there's a huge backlog at WP:RM of at least 30 pages. Somebody better get on that. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User: Gun Powder Ma

User:Gun Powder Ma has repeatedly attacked me as a "wargamer" and "having comprehension problems" as shown here. [17], [18], and [19], while I have maintained civility towards him, even warning him to stop lest he be reported [20]. I would like an administrator to deal with this continued verbal abuse.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See my response at WP:WQA SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election has now opened

The CheckUser and Oversight election has now opened. Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits prior to the first announcement of the election may vote. The voting will close at one minute past 23:59 UTC on 27 May 2010.

Direct link to the voting pages

Discuss the election here

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

user page

Please see User:Hauntingheather userpage, like some advert ?--Musamies (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User blocked and userpage deleted (per G11), both by User:Redvers. Mark as resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Carl Hewitt

for persistent self-promotion, ban and block evasion, and soapboxing (using Wikipedia to present his own version of history across dozens of articles). Hewitt is under a mild self-promotion restriction after WP:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt, a crazy arb case from 2005-2006 stemming from activities that according to Chris Hillman burned out at least one good Wikipedia contributor.[21] (Hillman himself eventually quit over too much crap like this).

I'm proposing that we upgrade Hewitt's restriction to a full-scale ban (i.e. revert everywhere, block on sight like Willy on Wheels instead of requiring content evaluation like the current restriction, which often results in doing nothing). Hewitt has a long history of block evasion (WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Log_of_blocks_and_bans) but response has been somewhat half-hearted because the amount of pure disruption he causes is not that severe on the scale of daily ANI drama. The real issue as I see it is more serious: Hewitt IMO is seeking to create an Alma problem in Wikipedia's coverage of computer science and its history by overstating the importance of his own work—see the arb case about the Actor model, and notice that Hewitt's socks are still battling in that subject as recently as a few hours ago.[22][23] CS is one of Wikipedia's more reputable subject areas, and I feel that its reliability has been diminished in topics Hewitt has messed with. It's going to take a significant content cleanup effort to fix that. I don't feel terribly hopeful about the cleanup, but can we at least stop the problem from getting worse?

I'm involved in the article Gödel's incompleteness theorems which is currently semi-protected for the second time since February because of tendentious self-promotion by Hewitt. Gödel's incompleteness theorems are foundational results in mathematical logic from the 1930's, taught in introductory logic classes the way Newton's laws of gravity are taught in introductory physics classes, but which don't have much to do with computers. Hewitt has been disrupting this article for months trying to insert material that is at best tangentially related.[24] My guess is that this has something to do with the article's high search rank compared with other articles like Paraconsistent logic where Hewitt's stuff is actually not so objectionable. If you look at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems you'll see a lot of sourcing research in February (mainly by User:Wvbailey with some contributions by myself and others) in preparation for writing a new section about the history of the theorems. This new section was added by User:CBM just a week or so ago. The 1 month gap in the talk page is cruft now archived at Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems/Archive_8, showing a big digression created by Hewitt where he promotes his own work by arguing with us about Ludwig Wittgenstein. Work on sourcing the history section didn't get under way again until the semi-protection. I know there is no deadline and we're writing about events from 80 years in the past, but still, prolonged interruptions in article development like this are unnecessary and annoying.

For some further background, please see

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Carl_Hewitt,

an incident report from February (written by me) that summarizes some past history. At User:Trovatore's suggestion I also have an SPI report open: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/CarlHewitt documenting some recent activity. The logic editors like CBM are doing a good job keeping the problem under control in logic articles, but they generally don't monitor computer science articles. CBM has correctly said large range blocks would cause too much collateral damage to stop this volume of socking.[25] But I think a very unambigous ban would be of significant help in being able to revert the crap without worrying about 3RR, sourcing discussions, arguments about Wittgenstein, complex incident reports to get simple blocks, etc. Part of the problem is Hewitt is a genuine notable figure in CS who did good work before this lunacy, so people sometimes engage him on-wiki as if he had a collegial relationship with Wikipedia instead of a predatory one (with us and our readership as the prey). So we should be clear about what is going on.[Yuck].

It would also be good if 63.112.0.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could be blocked while we're figuring out the other stuff.

Further reading:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Logical necessity of inconsistency
• WP:Articles for deletion/Direct logic
• Hewitt's Knol rant "Corruption of Wikipedia" (his version of The Truth).
• WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Evidence

If anyone thinks I'm overreacting to this 4 year-old saga that doesn't seem to be letting up, feel free to say so. Thanks.

69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I support this, although the practical effect is probably going to be nil. Edits using many IP sockpuppets. Maybe someone can figure out how he's managing that. One observation was that he often goes to conferences and edits from those locations. There are some WP:AE reports about him, and also some IPs were blocked and logged on the arbitration talk page. The talk page of Denotational semantics is another classic of what an article that CH messes with looks like. Anyone using that many sockpuppets should have been formally banned a long time ago. Pcap ping 22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note some of the IP's like 71.198.220.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been pretty persistent. I wonder if he has convenient access to some static addresses (like in an office) and less convenient access to dynamic ones (Stanford campus network). Blocking the longer-lived ones seems useful. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While the editing patterns here are far from ideal, I think that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Post-case clarification is adequate for handling them via semiprotection and reverts. Also, it isn't possible to be sure that the IPs involved are actually Carl Hewitt; they could be students or other random admirers. So there's no reason to focus on Hewitt specifically with an editing ban. The issue isn't Hewitt, it's the pattern of promotional edits. And, it's significantly preferable to simply revert and protect a few articles than to block a large number of IP addresses from highly-used dynamic ranges on the US west coast. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that massive range blocks are not on the table. I'm proposing longish blocks against 2 or 3 addresses that have been used for a while, and shorter (1-2 week) blocks against new addresses as they pop up. More important is to be able to revert under the rules of banned edits, rather than having to treat them as legitimate edits subject to mind-numbing arguments with the socks. It is traditional in situations like this to treat all sock/meatpuppets the same way, so whether those IP's are Hewitt personally editing is immaterial. I'm sure if those are Hewitt's students, they would stop this nonsense if he asked them to. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe they already can be reverted. The section [26] does include the word "ban". I do agree that the mind-numbing aspects need to stop. But simply not responding to them after a while is probably the best solution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You just indefinitely semi-protected Actor model without blocking 63.112.0.74! Maybe it's necessary for that article, but I just don't see any upside to letting these socks continue. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(To be fair, the actor model protection was before I was aware of this thread.) My concern is that there's really not much to do about IP socks; I don't think that blocking these would really make much difference. The number of articles is low enough that just semi-protecting them ought to be enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the list of articles in WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/CarlHewitt and that's just in the past few weeks alone (and I probably missed some). Semi-protecting them instead of blocking those IP's as they appear is inappropriate. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Question Would their be a BLP issue here with a ban given there's an article about him? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I can think of several other biography subjects who are banned. The triply-collapsed proposal below to ban he-who-must-not-be-named didn't mention any issues about that person's biography IIRC. If something happens with Hewitt's biography he can contact OTRS or arbcom by email. The biography is semi-protected so he can't edit it anyway. Note that (per his Knol page) he has been trying to get the biography deleted, so there is a bit of a Daniel Brandt situation going on (he may be attacking us partly because he doesn't like the biography). I'd be fine with deleting it if it got him to leave us alone, but that's just me. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If he's unwilling to work constructively with others and he was allowed to edit his own article (if he still wanted it, which you're saying he doesn't want), then i'm fine with a ban as long as there was a caveat to him saying that if he stops the behavior, the ban would be lifted. I think in nearly every case, banning is like swinging a baseball bat at a hornet's nest, you're just scattering them to keep on stinging you over and over again rather than killing the hornets: he'll just go underground with his behavior. It's far less time consuming to give him an avenue to work constructively if he wants it. If that's done and he continues the behavior, the ban and blocking of his sucks is justified. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

His interest in wikipedia really seems to be self-promotion and the rewriting of history, and I guess spamming references to his product (the "TM" in Direct Logic^TM presumably indicates that it's a product or is intended to become one). I don't think he tried to get his biography removed until after the arb case, though I'm not sure of that. Did you read the arb evidence page? The stuff he did was just bizarre. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Following comment moved from WP:ANI — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Am loosing patience. This Hewitt stuff interrupts dialog flow on the talk page. It sucks energy from the task of improving the article Godel's incompleteness theorems. The sock-puppets introduce extraneous shit that (for some reason commands reaction and thereby) diverts and obscures honest work. And now there's the on-going Stanford/Berkeley" BS that truly is diverting high-quality editing energy. Some of us are trying to work around this BS but we're having a hard time of it. If you need stronger wording I can come up with it. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this still a live issue? From my reading of this complaint, & what I've sussed out from reading the referenced discussions, my take on this is as follows:

• The ArbCom ruling doesn't apply to this article. It only concerns Carl Hewitt editting the article about himself -- not any other topic.
• There does appear to be tendentious editting here, directed at inserting Hewitt into this article. I don't understand what relevance Hewitt has to this subject -- despite repeated efforts in the past, I still don't understand Gödel's work on incompleteness -- but it is clear that these actions do not improve Wikipedia.
• Connecting Wittgenstein with Gödel in this article doesn't make obvious sense. Was Gödel even aware of Wittgenstein's work? If not, then at best he should only be mentioned in the section about the reaction to Gödel's incompleteness theorems -- as it currently is.
• If the tendentious editting is driving useful editors from Wikipedia, something should be done.
• It is difficult to separate out all of the anon IPs who have been involved in this issue. Some appear to be constructive, other seem to be allied to Hewitt's intentions.
• Semi-protecting this article for a fixed period is a far less radical response than banning Hewitt entirely from Wikipedia. As Charles Matthews stated in the ArbCom case, "User:Carl Hewitt, whom we all assume to be the distinguished academic of that name, is just the kind of contributor who potentially could upgrade the coverage here of some major areas." We can hope that he eventually decides to fulfill this need, rather than continue to continue to use Wikipedia to promote himself.

If this is still a live issue, I'll happily semi-protect this article for a while longer. Otherwise, the current semi-protection will expire shortly & the anon IPs will be allowed to do what they will to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you've missed the Post-case clarification, where he's banned from editing all articles to promote his research. But, that's practically all that he's been editing for the last 4 years or so... Pcap ping 11:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pajtim Kasami

Resolved

 – Done. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As the article Pajtim Kasami became notable, would someone undeleted the page history that deleted in January 2008? Matthew_hk tc 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Essay: You're Either With Us Or Against Us

Resolved

 – Being discussed at the appropriate venue. –xeno^talk 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this essay today: Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us. In the form in which I found it, it read: "Reasonable Wikipedians may disagree about many things, but there can be no accomodation with those who actively seek to destroy or undermine Wikipedia itself. When it comes to such people, you're either with us or against us." The last phrase was a link to Larry Sanger's talk page. A "see also" link pointed to Treason. I edited to remove the Larry Sanger link, but then felt I should get a second opinion. I'm not completely across policy for essays and use of the WP namespace, but am I wrong in thinking that a vaguely threatening essay, targeted at one individual, and without any clear benefit to the business of building an encyclopedia, is an inappropriate use of the Wikipedia namespace? Let's be clear: this is a question that I feel can be answered without a further debate about Larry Sanger, and would be the same question no matter who the link had been directed at. If I'm worked up over nothing please feel free to send me on my way. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It probably would need some clarification. When I first read it, I thought it was meant to be either humorous or along the lines of WP:BATTLEGROUND. –MuZemike 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even occur to me it might be humorous. I guess a side-effect of tagging some essays as humorous is that by exclusion those not tagged are assumed serious. A "this essay is kept as humorous" tag would probably solve the problem in the best possible way. Thanks. Will go add it now. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be chary of doing that without consulting its creator. WP:AGF, you know. Rodhullandemu

(edit conflict) As a general principle, I think the time has come when we tighten up on vandalism and those who are not generally supportive of our founding principles. It appears that our greatest strength has now become our greatest weakness. We are already too tolerant of the former, leaving it to four warnings before blocking, even temporarily, except in obvious and gross circumstances. As regards the latter, I know of no other website that tolerates abuse of its basic principles for one moment, and that includes Facebook and MySpace. This endeavour, to my mind, is a generous, and some would say liberal, attempt to provide free knowledge written by altruistic volunteers. Maybe that essay is too short and not fully-argued, but it's an opening in a debate; and it's currently an opinion. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. :-) But in any case essays in WP space are not the place to have that discussion. Wikipedia encourages debate in a number of other forums and it can be appropriately argued there. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's a novel principle to enounce, but the article has a Talk page, and there is WP:MFD. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point was to get an opinion from someone OTHER than the creators. Going to the talk page of a recently created article and asking, "Should this page exist?" didn't seem likely to get a wide range of viewpoints. I haven't yet used WP:MFD so I didn't think of it; you're right that that would have probably been a better forum. Thank you for the suggestion for next time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Removal of the link to Larry's page was appropriate. But with the link gone, I see no problem with this essay (I disagree with it, but see no problem with having it in WP space). It's an opinion. That's what essays are for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Note:It's good to keep in mind this essay was written by someone whose views are outside of the mainstream if their last RFA is any indication. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• I've made some edits to this article that have been reverted. I'm now withdrawing from editing it so as to avoid violating WP:3RR. Could I request more people to keep an eye on it, though, as I'm concerned it continues to be used as an attack page on Larry Sanger? In particular an IP address keeps reinstating the link to Sanger's talk page and removing links to relevant community-supported policy in the "See also" section. At the very least there should be a link to WP:BATTLEGROUND there, as an essay counter to project consensus should possibly acknowledge the existence of the policy it's in opposition to. I have considered taking it to MfD but don't believe it's appropriate as it's the essay content, not the existence of the essay itself, that's problematic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree. –MuZemike 07:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal. The essay writer has a point and he/she has stated it. Nothing wrong with that. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a problem with this essay: it is the mindset which got us into many of the problems we now face in the first place. Set aside the problems with vandalism & trolling for the moment (which I'll admit we are often too lenient in handling, but that's because very few people are comfortable with the nastiness which results from giving them a bum's-rush ban or similar rough justice). Far too often I see significant conflicts in Wikipedia -- serious stuff such as the Jimmy Wales vs. Commons rumble in the thread above -- split along a divide of "we know what's best for Wikipedia" vs. everyone else. It's a hold-over from the "Good old days" when the core community was very small & we were in constant worry about some outside group whose primary goal was not to build a useful encyclopedia but to secure one more outlet for their propaganda, & was willing to do whatever was needed to achieve that goal. However, since those "Good old days" the newbies have taken over with their own ideas & interpretations of policies & procedures, & there seems to be no more "us" here. Just two new groups of outsiders: those who want to join Wikipedia & add content, but get chased away; & those of us who don't make it a priority to network (i.e., regularly use IRC, talk pages, mailling lists, & other channels of communication) but have been here a long time, being treated like newbies or other undesirables because our usernames aren't familiar to someone. (I can say from unwanted personal experience that it's definitely unsettling after considering oneself part of the "us" to suddenly be treated as one of "them".) The general practice of assuming good faith helps some, but it truly hard not to fall into the erroneous assumption expressed in this essay: that either one is for Wikipedia -- or against it, without any middle ground. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Err just no. While there are groups that could be considered against us and certianly groups that could be considered with us there will always be large groups who are neither and realisticaly thats the way it should be. Claiming otherwise is deeply unwise.©Geni 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• This essay should perhaps be userfied (though this really should be discussed at WP:MFD). –xeno^talk 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would simply call such an essay silly. But if put before the choice whether editors who support this essay are with us or against us, the answer is obvious: They can only be against us, because they are definitely not with the fundamental principles of our community. I am not sure why they are against us. (As I said, I would normally just call it silly, so it's not my fault if the binary choice has strange consequences.) Perhaps the essay supporters want to destroy Wikipedia because they don't like it when people edit together in harmony? Just guessing. Hans Adler 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the entire IT press is becoming part of "them", [27] [28], not just the usual suspects. To hell with them all! I propose a new policy— WP:UNPROFESSIONAL: any source that criticizes Wikipedia is deemed unreliable, and cannot be used in any article. Any editor adding such a source is unprofessional, and should be indef blocked, as it's done on more successful encyclopedias. Given that major venues are going to criticize Wikipedia at one point or another, we should limit article contents to Pokemon, Star Trek, and obscure math theorems, because those can surely be sourced only from reliable sources. Pcap ping 07:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us‎ Equazcion ^(talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Post resolved thought; perhaps we ought to have a Good Essay / Fabulous Essay rating system - anything that gets traction within the community sufficient to be quoted or exampled (including the intentionality humorous) is promoted, all other essays are recognised as being the personal viewpoint of the author(s)... Can you imagine the drama of the promotion process, and when promoted articles are reviewed for conformity to the current standards!? Doubtless people will write essays about it!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought we have that already (good essay -> guideline, fabulous -> policy), or at least that's in the brochure. Pcap ping 13:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This page needs Admin attention

There's a war on Posušje between an IP user (That seems to change there IP after a while) and User:PRODUCER. This page has been semi-protected and it didn't really help. This IP user is determined, also the fact that this user can change there IP means he/she could easily create accounts and cause a big war on this page. I don't know if the IP user is vandalism as I'm not very familiar with the subject but both users are calling each other vandals. Also, what the IP user is putting in a translation from one of wikipedia's other languages (link here[29]). So I don't think the IP user is causing vandalism. I don't know what should be done about this, so hopefully you admins can find a solution to this.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We also may need to check if the IP user is somehow related to User:Aradic-es as Producer as accused him of being User:Aradic-es.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection expired on April 5th. The IP seems to be adding a lot of poorly-written original research. I've reverted and warned, but I'm not quite sure if this qualifies as vandalism; ie. the kind of thing one person should be reverting over and over. Hopefully we get some more input here. Here's the edit in question, which has been made and reverted about 30 times now. Also notified User:PRODUCER. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said before the IP user looks like he's adding a direct translation from another wikipedia. So I don't think it's original re-search, as this city is in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wikipedia this is translating from is from the Bosnian wikipedia. So I think this is an attempt to translate.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there's reasonable suspicion that the IPs belong to given/former editor, a WP:SPI seems the best venue. Pcap ping 13:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 2 weeks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aradic-es/Archive. Same types of edits such [30] and [31] taken at two different time periods which were also brought up in the investigation. Also, Brandon has confirmed that the 78.2's were IPs used by Aracdic-es and are in the same range and ISP as the other IPs. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

the case has been cracked ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mass delete per F2.

Hey there admins. If anyone wants to up there deletion count help me out, I made a list of empty file description pages. All of them may be speedily deleted, I believe, per WP:CSD#F5. I am pretty sure most of them are leftovers from being moved to commons, but there may be a WP:CSD#F4 in there (original upload had no content) so be careful. Tim1357 ^talk 21:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can be certain they all meet the CSD, you can use Twinkle to nuke them all (I think)... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Twinkle doesn't work for file description pages not associated with a file. I went through and manually deleted the files that satisfied WP:CSD#F2 and tagged several files missing licensing information. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC needs uninvolved admin to close it

Resolved

User:Basket of Puppies/vulgarityrfc. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... Rodhullandemu 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Maybe not great, but it is closed. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• It needs a box around it and a note up top; people will just keep posting, as it is. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some eyes on LeBron James

It's been attracting a lot of vandalism and BLP violations lately, despite being semi-protected. I've kept an eye on it since discovering vandalism sticking there last night, but I'll be away until Sunday, most likely. I put a warning on the talk page. Enigma^msg 19:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be better to put a warning on the actual page such that it appears when editing like the Lewis Hamilton an RMS Titanic articles. To access this use the red page notice that appears when editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I find the code for warnings like there are on the articles you mentioned? Enigma^msg 00:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You use {{editnotice}}. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done thanks. This is now resolved, I suppose, as the article got along well enough without me. Enigma^msg 06:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just needs admins to keep an eye on the article and deal with the perpetrators when they vandalise it. Mjroots2 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

During the week, I'm on often enough to keep an eye on it. I was just concerned for the weekend, but as it turns out, there was no trouble. Enigma^msg 21:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

This has just come to my attention at RfPP. It appears there is an edit war going on. I'm inclined to fully protect it, but, with it being a policy page, I think it should be restored to last stable, consensus backed version but am reluctant to do so myself, so the eyes of more experienced admins would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the wrong version. I probably should have protected the other wrong version though? Rettetast (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I don't fuss over "the Wrong Version" but I think we should treat policy pages differently- for example, someone could invent their own CSD, add it to the policy page, revert a few times and get the page protected in their made-up version with a bit of luck and timing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is this related to some recent lameness regarding deletion or otherwise of an article on a word or phrase? A little bell is ringing but I can't remember the specifics. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Removal of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, among other places. Deor (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. So, I think we may be approaching the time to wield the WP:TROUT. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages

I need to move (rename) an article of a BLP, Desiree Bassett to "Desireé Bassett". With the new layout, I am not sure how to go about doing so. Frankly, i am not even sure where to have gone with this inquiry, so I am asking here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The move function has been hidden away underneath the collapsible menu to the right of the "History" tab. If you mouse over the inscrutable triangle found there, you should see a "Move" option for any page that isn't protected from being moved. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as I'm here, I should also point out that the article is far too much of a close paraphrase of http://dbassett.com/about/ .Really, it needs to be substantially rewritten. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a page move the right thing here (it is her proper name, after all), or is a simple redirect a more elegant solution?

As for the paraphrasing claim, I'm pretty sure that isn't the case, but you should feel free to edit to remove any similarity that you feel is there, Gavia immer. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The page move was correct. Titles should use diacritics where appropriate, but have redirects from titles without diacritics to enable people to find the articles easily. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought the standard was whatever the person is known by in English. Are they known with diacriticts in English? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the particular case in question. As long as the article can be easily found that is the main thing. The pedant in me would use the title with diacritics as being the "correct" spelling - names like René, Chloë etc. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This might be a silly question - not to mention a bad time to ask - but shouldn't the page be at "Desirée Bassett" and not "Desireé Bassett"? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not... if the site's spelling ("On her thirteenth birthday, Desiree' played two important gigs...") is anything to go by. Bizarre. Or "bizareé", if you'd prefer. TFOWR^propaganda 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, is the name Desireé or is it Desiree' ? Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Desireé" looks like a misspelling. Desiree (given name) when written with diacritics is normally Désirée. I think I've also seen it written as Desirée. Desireé with the accent over the final e looks weird and wrong and I'd resist that move unless confirmed through some good sourcing or direct communication with the subject that she spells it that odd way. Desiree' would be a mangling by some English speaker who used an apostrophe instead of an accent aigu and put it in the wrong place. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to softblock Toolserver IP addresses

See Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Proposal to softblock Toolserver IP addresses. Pcap ping 08:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with salting

In accordance with discussion at AFD, I deleted and salted Blood on the dance floor (band). I very rarely do anything with protection, and I virtually never salt pages, so I'm not sure that I did it correctly; could someone please check? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I get a message saying that only administrators can create that page, so you've added the right amount of salt in the right place. Bencherlite^Talk 18:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to salt Blood on the dance floor as they will surely try again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a Sophie Ellis Baxtor tribute band...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Query about a new facility "Del/undel selected revisions"

• I am an ordinary administrator. When I look at a page's (not deleted) history, today (18 May 2010) I have started getting a tick box opposite each edit entry, and to the right a click box that says "Del/undel selected revisions". If I go into that, what I get looks like an option to purge matter from the record completely, rather than an option to merely transfer one or more edits from the undeleted edits list to the deleted edits list. Please what has happened? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See above at #Revision Deletion. –xeno^talk 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd Behavior

I noticed a new account creating five other new accounts just a few minutes ago. I left them a note, but have not heard a reply (I assume they saw it, since they just finished creating the accounts). I don't know if this is a problem, since none of the accounts have edited. My question is this: do I a) do nothing beyond my welcome note, b) block all the alternate accounts, warning the main account, or c) block everyone in sight and treat myself to a cold beer? Any advice is appreciated. TNXMan 19:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Nawlin already blocked them all. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Option C it was, then. TNXMan 19:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Any chance it's Mascot Guy? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good block. However, the fact that Everyday People Guy (talk · contribs) only created five accounts probably had nothing to do with the talk page message. Each IP address can only create a maximum of six accounts per day; that limit is waved for account creators and admins, not regular users. Graham87 05:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll about search box placement

Considering the many comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change, Wikipedia:User experience feedback, Wikipedia:User experience feedback/search box, and many other locations around Wikipedia, a centralized straw poll on the placement of the search box in the new Wikipedia skin is being conducted here:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Search box poll 2010.

--Elonka 12:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected images on the Main Page Part V

Whack!

for letting File:Flag of Sikkim.svg sit on the main page for 48 minutes unprotected. β^_command 00:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Err... It hasn't even been uploaded. o 0 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I had it protected on commons. Im about to file a bug in bugzilla about a flaw that I discovered. File:Sikkimflag.svg is the actual image link that was used. but its a redirect to another file, which was also not protected. The bug i discovered is that cascade protected images do not follow redirects, thus even though File:Sikkimflag.svg was automatically protected via cascade protection the actual image is not. β^_command 02:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

see bugzilla:23542 β^_command 03:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're talking about bugs in cascading protection, I'll give a shoutout to bugzilla:18483. Shubinator (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Does that trout get bigger and bigger all time? It now looks like The Trout That Ate Cincinatti. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious: does being protected on commons prevent someone from uploading a different version here, or do we still need to make a protected local copy? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Local upload or protection on commons both work. β^_command 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What about local create protection? –xeno^talk 16:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If its not uploaded locally then nothing we do here will do anything to prevent exploitation. If they modify the file on commons it translates to en.wp. thus if the image is not protected on commons or uploaded locally its subject to exploitation. β^_command 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Thanks, –xeno^talk 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@ β^_command: I've refactored your comment (resizing the trout). Apologies in advance if you find this objectionable; do please revert me if that's the case.

@ BMK: I've reset the trout to a minnow. I want to see this biggering and biggering myself :-)

TFOWR^propaganda 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Smaller is better, but I'm not sure it needs to be that small -- it needs to have some impact, after all, without scaring the cat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I should be even larger than I made it, unprotected images on the mainpage shouldnt happen. This is at least my 5th posting to this page about it. the individual cases are even higher. (I reverted the trout). β^_command 03:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, though my first thought was "blimey, BMK wasn't joking!" ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• May I make a suggestion? If the process of protecting pictures that appear on the main page is failing (and if there have been five postings by the user β^_command about it, then it would appear to be so), users should discuss ways of improving the process on the relevant talk page rather than continually posting a picture of a trout here? --62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I'm with Beta on that- if enough fuss is kicked up about this, then maybe it will raise the profile of the issue. My suggestion would be for any non-admin who discovers an unprotected image on the MP to email me and any other admin who appears to be online and bug me on my talk page to tell me you've sent me an email, obviously without drawing attention to the subject of the email. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think what the IP is driving at is: perhaps admins who work on the main page don't look at WP:AN, and vice-versa. –xeno^talk 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I work on the MP and I look at AN. That said, WT:MP might be a better venue. Could Betacommand or someone else who follows this possibly email me the details of which files, which section of the main page and what time of day so I can look into it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think what 62.25.109.195 is getting at is that these repeated incidents show that the current manual MP image protection process is too complicated and/or failure-prone to ever be reliable, no matter how many times people are reminded to do all the steps. The problem should be solved by technical means that check or enable protection automatically, rather than by expecting superhuman accuracy from admins doing the updates. The bugzilla tickets are a step in the right direction. Per HJ Mitchell the trouts here do have some usefulness in keeping people aware of the issue. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting an old version of a talk page

Please remove this version of a talk page, as an editor revealed the real name of another user. Markus Schulze 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked the editor in question whether or not he would like this removed? His user page states that his real name can be discovered. TNXMan 17:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Homunq wrote to me: "Please do not post my real name on wikipedia, or my wiki username on any public mailing list." Markus Schulze 18:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Policymaking

This is discussed here because administrators have much weight and also much experience.

The current policymaking is not very good. Nobody with a life can keep tabs of all policies and guidelines. Also anyone can stop it by just saying "no". Discussion has too few participants so that one person can hold up things. The United Nations does not operate on a system where one or two can veto everything.

The current system of discussing things initially works well. However, policy changes should be discussed on a Wikipedia wide basis periodically, say every six months.

There are a number of conflicting things in Wikipedia. For most or all of them, I don't have an opinion, much less an agenda. Voting can be done at the time of ArbCom elections. The vote can or doesn't have to be binding. If not binding, it can be advisory to the participants of the discussion. Another possibility is that once or twice a year, certain issues can be voted on by administrators and that vote sent back to the policy talkpages to help guide the discussion. That way, administrators would not be the decision makers but their vast experience would help guide everyone. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree there's a systemic problem with "policy/guideline hawks": people with a lot of time on their hands that camp on a more or less obscure policy/guideline page and stymie most changes by first saying NO user1 that proposes X, three months later saying NO to user2 that proposes the same thing, never mind arguing that "this has been rejected already" (by him), rinse and repeat. I have seen guidelines that are widely different from "practice on the ground" as a result of this issue. So, ensuring wide participation in proposals is important to obtain a relevant consensus. This is much less of a problem on important policies than on obscure, MOS-type guidelines, but the latter tend to attract the opinionated anal hawks the most, it seems. On the other hand, we need a flexible way to address small changes. Pcap ping 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

it can be unnoticed "small changes" that cause the most problems. Clever alteration of a modifier can reverse the effect of a policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• The endless quibbling over Policy is a problem, only because policy geeks will force through some bizarre reading of the general principals, then turn around & try to force the rest of us to obey their commands. (Otherwise, the Wikipedia namespace is an excellent tarbaby to keep those types occupied while the rest of us are free to get the real work done -- writing content.) On the other hand, many troublemakers & kooks try to exploit the general dissatisfaction with the policy geeks in order to force thru their own changes to such primary policies as no original research. (Which is why we shouldn't rely on ignore all rules to limit the possible damage & ignore the Wikipedia namespace.) Some days I wish I could get away with blocking some of the worst policy geeks, so they either wise up or leave Wikipedia, but that would likely lead to more trouble than it's worth. Maybe an RfC might get their attention... -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May I get a page moved?

Since I participated, it wouldn't be good for me to move the Seki Kōwa page to Seki Takakazu per the talk page discussion. It's been 30 days since the discussion opened, and everyone in the discussion is in agreement it should be moved. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Very uncontroversial so I've gone ahead and done the move and closed the discussion - is there anything else I need to do? Hopefully I've done everything! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, moving it is all that was needed. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian ice

Apparently one editor (using numerous IPs and a registered account or two) is attempting to add incormation about one particular vendor of Italian ice to that article. Previous discussion (see the article talk page) decided that this material was not appropriate (I'd call it spam, but whatever) and the editor agreed. Today, I've warned the editor under the IP 24.89.186.2 and the new account User:GoodforWalesItsGoodforMe. I've reported IP to WP:AIV and twice reverted (as off-topic) an addition to the talk page reading, "From what I can see there is no one in charge anymore- http://eberbach.pl/blog/wikipedia-founder-tries-to-remove-alleged-kiddie-porn-then-gives-up-editorial-privileges/?wpmp_switcher=mobile - and if the owner of the company can edit anything indiscriminately - why can't I?" - SummerPhD (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Account indeffed, article semi'd for a week. WP:ANI next time, please. Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#F2

Hi all. It's come to my attention that WP:CSD#F2, which has traditionally been used to delete file description pages for files on Commons, does not, in fact, explicitly include that clause at WP:CSD#F2. If that's the case, then how should file description pages for files on Commons be handled, if at all? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:CSD#F8 which covers all the commons eventualities. Is this what you are thinking about? Regards, Woody (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear. I was referring to pages like File:William Hogarth 023.jpg. Note how the file does not exist locally, yet an image description page of some sort does (note how you can click "edit this page"). -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that F8 applies there as well, though equally, it would be better to make it clearer. In the Hogarth case I would move the content of the description page to commons if it was needed and then delete the page under F8 image on commons. The page here serves no purpose. Woody (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How about making an F13 - Redundant local image description for image now Commons (Not featured, badimage or protected).,

Add this to TWINKLE and everyone's happier :) ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording was moved from F2 (then I2) to F8 in this edit; it was then removed entirely in this one with a comment to use G8. Neither of these edits make a whole lot of sense to me; I'm all for putting it back in F2, where it fits in perfectly. —Korath (Talk) 23:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; put it back in F2. In the meantime, for obvious cases, use G8; that's what I've been using. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Erwinbot

This bot appears to have gotten into a circular loop on my talk page. Despite the importance of the bot to afd notifications and other functions, I have temporarily blocked it until it gets fixed. Anyone ready to unblock, just go ahead-0-no need to consult me. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

actually, Tim Song seems to have gotten there first. thanks, tim. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's the day to watch this page

There's some predictable, angry vandalism [32] being drawn toward Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, since today is that day. For the next 24 hours or so the article could use lots of eyes and some very, very cool heads. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing earlier today. Actually, I guess that was yesterday. Either way, you gotta love the freedom of expression that will be plastered all over the place. This is something that both liberals and conservatives can support. In the western world, that is. †TE†Talk 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It brings to mind the phenomenon called the Streisand effect. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Or that both liberals and conservatives can reject. Many conservatives don't like dissing anyone's religion, on principle; many liberals don't like dissing anyone's culture on principle (especially if it's a minority in the West), and of course many on both sides share both concerns and a concern for freedom of speech. It's a question of which baby do we need to sacrifice: is freedom of speech going to be curtailed by intimidation or are we forced to uphold it by insulting good Muslims? It would be nice if that tradeoff were a false dichotomy, but the article, which seems to have links to anything intelligent ever said about this controversy, shows there are no easy answers. But a lot of people will emote first, act stupid in one way or another, then (maybe) think later. All this by way of saying that if any admins have to block, please be nice about it.

Facebook is now blocked in Pakistan. (edited to add:) YouTube, too. And maybe Wikipedia (Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, also appeared to be blocked in Pakistan on Thursday, but it was not clear whether the government had restricted access or there was a glitch in the system. [33] Lot's of hits coming in here. [34] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)addition -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Doniago falsely accusing me of vandalism

See User_talk:Penbat#Re:_Mobbing

I am extremely annoyed that Doniago considers my hard work as "vandalism" on mobbing.

1. my edits are entirely constructive - I have added material and not deleted any material
2. the edits are supported by an authoritative cited source.
3. my cited source is the world's leading authority on mobbing, Kenneth Westhues, and it took him years to develop his list of films that feature mobbing.--Penbat (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Response and comment on your talk page. Should resolve this with luck. I agree that provided the sources are solid as you say (which I imagine they are) then it looks like you have been editing appropriately and not engaging in vandalism. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Given Penbat's recent edit summaries and additions to the Mobbing talk page, and Penbat's failure to notify me that there was a discussion here that was pertinent to me, I don't believe this issue necessarily has been resolved. Apologies if I am not following protocol here...until now I didn't think my input was needed. Doniago (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You posted twice on Talk:Mobbing yesterday and you said you would leave it to others and you hadnt so far posted today. If there is any vandalism around here, it is you doing it. I ADDED very constructive text but not only did you destructively DELETE and VANDALISE my hard work, you even rolled back way before I started doing the film list and i have had to try to sort the mess out as later edits have been done by another editor. You also havent yet expressed any remorse for blatantly wasting the time of several good intentioned people. I also dont know what you are talking about above as you posted twice on Talk:Mobbing before I was even aware that there was a discuusion on Talk:Mobbing and i first posted a long time after you. --Penbat (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to revert a page move

Resolved

 – Editor self-reverted. —DoRD (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Technicalspartacus (talk · contribs) moved Two turntables and a microphone to Two Turntables & A DJ Mixer with the explanation that The old name is inaccurate. DJs use two turntables and a DJ mixer; not two turntables and a microphone. While this explanation may be technically correct, the phrase "two turntables and a microphone" has historical significance, and the whole point of the article is to explain that historical significance. By changing the title of the article, the user has completely divorced the title from the significance of the content. I am requesting an admin's attention to move the page back to its original title (which will require deleting the current redirect page in order to make room for the moved page.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he reverted himself, so I think all is in order. TNXMan 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This was all nicely handled on the editor's talkpage, so there was really no need for this thread. Since it's here, though, I have gone ahead and nuked the remaining redirects as there was really no reason to keep them. —DoRD (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please!

Good, now I've got your attention, more admin eyes at WP:RPP would be greatly appreciated. I've just cleared a massive backlog and it seem I've been the only admin looking in on it regularly over the last few days. Like I say, more eyes would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite Personal Attacks and Removing edits on article talk page

Forum shopping - also on AN/I
[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] This editor has templated me, made personal attacks against me on my talk page and in the article talk page, and within edit summaries.Malke2010 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC) What do your edits have to do with editing the article in question? Wikipedia is not a forum. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding apparent sock puppets of a banned User

I just ran across two new Users who appear to be sock puppets of User:Tony1234512345. Since Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony1234512345/Archive is archived, what is the appropriate procedure in such a case? Start a new investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony1234512345? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Just fill out the form. The procedures will take care of sorting the paperwork and adding it to the archive once the new case is closed.—Kww(talk) 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. They've been blocked, I'll try to store that away for future reference. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Non-controversial move

Resolved

 – article and talk page moved to appropriate page James (T C) 00:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, if I could have 10 seconds of an admin's day here for a non-controversial move. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done James (T C) 00:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Major backlog at WP:CFD

WP:Categories for Discussion has a backlog going back to April 7, with nearly 40 open from April. Some help with closures would be greatly appreciated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

We have about 23 cases not awaiting CheckUser that needs some help dealing with over at WP:SPI. If any admin has some free time and wants to look at a couple, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, –MuZemike 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's down to 12 now, but there are still 15 awaiting checkuser right now so if any of them could go over and help clean that up, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on flagged revisions trial

I have created a request for comment on the flagged revisions trial, motivated by an unexpected, unannounced and publicly undiscussed change of configuration removing the reviewer usergroup. Please weigh in there. Cenarium (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More admin eyes would be appreciated

WP:RPP has been backlogged all day. There are still a few reports pending. A few more admins watchlisting it would be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Account creation: This issue needs examined.

Please see my post here and comment there as needed. This process is extraordinarily contrary to English Wikipedia's policies on both privacy and unblocked, and allows for unfettered socking. Unblock-l works just fine for this, a closed system as constructed is, for want of a better term, wrong. Keegan (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

SPA

Please check the contribs of 70.21.250.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It appears to be one of the banned users evading the block. The IP is mass reverting Armenia - Azerbaijan related pages, which were a subject to a number of arbitration cases. Urgent admin attention is required. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, these edit summaries are clear racial attacks: [40] [41] Grandmaster 13:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on an admin: [42] Grandmaster 06:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision Deletion

For your information, it looks like this has been turned on for administrators per the discussion here. The appropriate procedural policy page appears to be WP:REVDEL. Camw (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange, the discussion didn't really have any kind of consensus (even though this biased observer thinks that swiftly hiding sensitive or dangerous information trumps the transparency concern). Administrators should be mindful to use this sparingly until the lingering concerns are addressed. –xeno^talk 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bugzilla request has been updated now to confirm it has been done. I guess the discussion I linked earlier was to ask for this work to be prioritised as the initial Bugzilla report indicates consensus to turn the feature on was reached in this discussion on the REVDEL talk page. Taking care over its use is a good idea. Camw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I just noticed this. Some changes need at WP:REVDEL .... Pedro :  Chat  14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Activated Single-Revision Deletion. –xeno^talk 14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to thank FT2 for providing the guidance and warnings below. After reading through the applicable bugzilla report, I share his concerns, particularly those addressed in 3 and 4 below. The tool has some serious flaws that may require as much as a complete rewrite to overcome. Just saying... Be careful! —DoRD (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

RevisionDelete update

The Admin use of RevisionDelete has indeed been enabled on this wiki. But there are issues - an ongoing discussion was tending to "not yet" in light of known bugs, and although a policy exists, no guidance has been provided on testing and usage. According to one oversighter, there has been "suspected inappropriate use" already.

More seriously, the underlying bug/issue that's been holding it up, is not yet fixed. This might matter a little less in the "single revision" version that was reported to have been enabled... except an admin has already said that they managed to use the "multiple revisions" version today. (Still being checked).

Until the position is sorted out and we know whether this function will be re-disabled, or viable, and what bugs remain, some quick guidance to minimize any bug-related problems and/or misuse. The RevisionDelete interface is via the new "del/undel" links administrators can see next to revisions, and in the deletion log. These can safely be clicked. Actions are linked from the deletion log.

Quick guidance:

1/ Do not test the new "del/undel" function on live pages. Use sandbox pages and own userspace subpages to learn about RevDelete.

2/ Use RevDelete minimally and within policy only. Read the policy carefully as there are some serious warnings in it.

3/ Do not use RevDelete on more than one revision per action on a live page, even if it lets you. Log issues can arise later.

4/ Do not use RevDelete on deleted revisions. Log issues could arise if RevisionDelete gets applied to a revision while deleted and the revision was later undeleted. Instead, use selective undelete to undelete the revision first, then delete the problem fields using RevDelete.

5/ Do not use RevisionDelete to delete revisions or log entries (and especially block or delete logs) except when you are exceedingly sure they are within the terms of WP:REVDEL. The community consensus on enabling the tool was that due to its power as a tool, arbcom and possible admonishment/desysopping can be appropriate on a first misuse.

More updates to follow once the position is clearer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If even a first misuse (even accidental?) can result in desysopping, we need to let admins know about this more broadly. I had no idea it was going to be implemented and panicked for a moment, thinking I had accidentally gotten Oversight access. Steven Walling 04:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we not supposed to be able to change the visibility of two revisions at once? I think that's what you're saying is being checked but unless I'm pretty sure I did. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said on the Village Pump discussion, giving this tool to all admins is a mistake. It's too quirky to be handed over to 1000 users, most of who will probably not bother to read the intricate dos and dont's. Pcap ping 07:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments: -

@Steven Walling yes but the switching on of the function was not known till it happened so nobody was expecting it, we're playing catch up and trying to get the sysadmins (server administrators) to revoke it until sorted out, but that's under their control not enwiki community's control.

@Amorymeltzer As implemented the impression was that you shouldn't be able to do 2 revs at once, but we're seeing instances where people have managed to. If the software happens to allow it, please don't do this. It is easier to clear up any log problems if the tool was used on a single revision in each action.

@Pcap Eventually I think it'll be like CSD and WW, the norms will be widely understood and the seriousness of misuse pass into "general admin culture". This is "learning curve" stuff. It does however need carefull rollout - ideally explanation, education, guidance first, then tool. The sysadmins have said they will discuss it and learn for future from it though, and it is rare. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• The most times that I want selective delete is when history-merging: e.g. someone cut-and-paste moved page X to page Y; later people make stray late edits to X (usually redirects). When history-merging X to Y, I first need to delete those stray late edits of X, else in the history-merge they will be shuffled in with the edits that were the history of page Y. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  RevisionDelete is not the tool what you are looking for. You are looking for "RevisionMove". Until that is provisioned, you'll need to continue to use selective deletion. –xeno^talk 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What Xeno said. RevDelete just stops a user seeing the name, content or edit summary (as specified). It doesn't help when it comes to cut-paste move fixes. Its intended use is to handle revisions that contain content which is improper and should be deleted by communal norms, a bit like CSD or selective deletion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• If "The software will let you delete 2 at once but you mustn't because it will screw up logging" then the rollout was premature and needs to be reversed until the software is revised to prevent the forbidden action. If clicking some new feature once by accident can lead to "arbcom and desysopping" then admins should have the option of turning off a feature he may never intentionally use while doing other admin tasks. Does it at least have an "Are you sure?" safety feature? Edison (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have an "are you sure you want to..." kind of thing, but, just like regular delete, it opens up a special page and asks for a reason and the part(s) of the edit you want to delete. Try it in a sandbox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The developers are onto it in a big way. It's actually prompted some fairly serious action in the background. As for the "are you sure", the guidance is actually pretty straightforward and not hard to remember. Don't use RevDelete to hide "ordinary" incivility, delete, block logs, etc (unless theres a very good reason indeed), and in any event only use it for the matters covered by policy. A number of tool misuses can lead to AC first time, such as wheel warring, self unblocking, etc, and other admin tools also have tight restrictions on usage (CSD). Admins learn those as they go along. It's just less common for a new tool to be introduced so everyone's learning it. In a year it'll be "ordinary". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Update #2

Werdna says he is giving the underlying issue a very high level of priority. Exceptional response in that sense. Very cool email received. No idea yet what the outcome will be or the time needed for coding, but from the sound of it "Warp speed 9, Mr Sulu" comes pretty close.

(Disclaimer: IANAT] FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear =). Hopefully the fix is retroactive and fixes the old broken links too. –xeno^talk 13:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Button to enable/disable it? Since (a) this is not a tool one will use often, (b) it's sufficiently powerful and dangerous to warrant threats of immediate desysop for misuse, and (c) the extra (del/undel) links clutter the screen up considerably, how about having a button to enable/disable the facility? That would get it out of the way most of the time, but would require only one extra click to enable it when required. JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It probably would not be hard to hide this with javascript or css. I would suggest asking at WP:VPT for someone to write a script, perhaps Nihiltres would be willing to do so as he is already working with the facility for a script to hide revision deletions or normal deletions from the delete log. –xeno^talk 13:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The interface is hideable as Xeno says. However doing so is probably a bit over the top as it's a mainstream tool that does a lot less harm to the page history than delete selective undelete. When you see User:Example is an ass slime and deserves to be fed piece by piece to leprous crocodiles and injected with aids, I plan to burn her house down, or Click this link [virus site|here] now for Jimbo's secret plan to advertize on Wikipedia in a revision, edit summary, or page move title, you'll find a staggering lack of objection to its use. Might I suggest caution's good, and yet, wait until the tool's log issue is fixed (which simplifies its use) and then very cautiously use RevDelete as you feel safe for clearcut cases until we all get a bit more familiar with it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Add .mw-revdelundel-link {display:none} in your monobook.css, or I suppose vector.css if you have one of those. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (copied from WT:REVDEL by –xeno^talk, slight copy-editing)

In response to JohnCD, I think this is a good idea too if I somehow get the admin privilege, especially your reason to (c). And also, how about the rollback links too? especially on the recent changes page, where it comes up quite a lot there too. Minimac (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those scripts seem particularly difficult to program, but you'll have better luck getting them written by asking at WP:VPT or WT:US. –xeno^talk 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Update #3

Quick further update on a likely fix for this. Werdna's just confirmed he has a draft "fix" for the "breaking log links" problem in SVN (ie ready for release). He says he's going to sleep on it, recheck his own work tomorrow, and if it works will release it as a fix.

Technical summary - The RevDelete deletion log links are created "on demand" but the code wasn't checking whether the target revisions were deleted or undeleted - it assumed they were the same as when the original RevDelete action originally took place. The modified code checks for this and ensures working links via a slight change to the log: [visible revisions | deleted revisions].

Its a fix rather than a long term "best solution" (rewriting MediaWiki's deletion handling would be a big job). In principle it solves the immediate issue. It means RevDelete log links would not "break" for revisions that had been deleted/undeleted, and would still be traceable for actions covering multiple revisions. So it can be fully used without these problems. It also sounds like it should be retrospective, covering past RevDelete actions (at least if they were visible when redacted).

Once the update is released it'll be necessary to check the fix has done its job and if there are any remaining matters. At that point it's fully usable and a proper introduction can be given for those new to it.

Tracking info - Bugzilla 23633 Code r66793

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus Conspiracy

Just a heads up that the Miley Cyrus article may need additional attention tomorrow: http://imgur.com/UENw7?full ~MDD4696 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious attempt at vandalizing Wikipedia, lock it down now in pre-emptive full protection to prevent it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Morons! The article's indefinitely semi protected anyway as I recall and it's on my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why full? The already-existing semi will prevent any drive-by vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Already exsisting accounts, accounts past the magic number where they stop getting asked for a captcha question, ya know, normal stuff. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep a close eye on it and fully protect it if we get sleeper attacks (at least it will flush out the sleepers!). I've also requested deletion of the image on Imgur, though I'm not sure what their process is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, seems good to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments about Disney in the image explain some of the comments that have appeared on the article's talk page recently.[43][44] I just have one question, when is the "23th" of May? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Well spotted! Like I say- morons! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I guess it's likely to be a handy marker for bored teenagers, but I nuked Miley Cyrus's Controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This just cropped up. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Salted under BLPDEL. Woody (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, all that and all we got was 2 talk page vandals. Not out of the ordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The pornstar, the metaller and the religious fanatic

Our old friends the Westboro Baptist Church have issued a press release on the death of Ronnie James Dio (real name Ronald James Padavona), claiming, among other things, that he's the uncle of minor porn star Gen Padova, presumably on a "they both start with Pad…" reasoning. (It's clearly false—Dio was an only child, so has no nieces pornstar or not.) Since then, there's been a low-level battle-of-the-IPs on Padova's article trying to insert this. Can people keep an eye on this—I can't imagine this gets watched much. – iridescent 20:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected Gen Padova for a week. NW (Talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
• Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs), Ellol (talk · contribs), and YMB29 (talk · contribs) are banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months. At the end of 6 months, they may each apply to have their ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
• Biophys (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 1 year. At the end of 1 year, Biophys may apply to have the ban reviewed by the Arbitration Committee.
• Consecutive to that topic ban, Biophys is restricted to 1 revert per week per article in the topic area for 1 year.
• Russavia and Vlad federov are admonished for posting personal information of other editors.
• Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

MascotGuy has been turned loose

After a nice, quiet break from this insanity, it has resumed anew as you can see with a look at the edit filter: [45]. If you also take the time to read his LTA page, I made what I assume was a second successful contact with his mother who clearly has a lot on her plate when dealing with her son. I don't think she's aware of how destructive he is over here since she clearly doesn't understand what the site is all about. Do we just keep on playing whack-a mascot or can we run a CU on the accounts he's created thus far in May and slap a real rangeblock on him? He's a big reason I was taking a break; none of the higher-ups seem to care. If we can figure out which of his accounts he's using at home, blocking those ranges would be an excellent start. Might not completely curb him, but it would surely slow him down. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we thought of a rangeblock and it was shot down because his range is so large. Also, he knows how to reset his IP so it would be like shooting in the dark. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've done quite a few blocks (i.e. 20-30 blocks the past couple of weeks) regarding MascotGuy. The pattern seems to be creating an account and then using that account to create others. –MuZemike 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We actually have a bot that has been alerting us to his presence within seconds, and a lot of people are watching it. (It operates in a similar manner to the filter.) Since he seems to back off after a block for at least a few hours, I think whack-a-mole is the most effective way to go right now, especially since he's not really causing any harm. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know we had a bot for this guy! Can someone please direct me to it? I plan on watching it as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Norse Dwarves

Hello. The article Norse dwarves could use some attention. Basically, as it stands, the article presents theory as fact throughout. Haldrik (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing NPOV/OR/Rewrite tags and altering talk page headers that he doesn't care for, presumably to deflect attention. Anyway, since there seem to be few eyes on this article and I have neither a lot of time nor my books with me, please see the talk page for more information. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best place for this notice -- Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard would be a better fit for both this issue & the article in general -- unless you'd like to see some bored Admins make lame jokes about Norse dwarf tossing or argue over the proper plural of "dwarf". However after reading the article, I did flag this section which is either undeniably original research or boldly plagiarized from some academic source. Let's see what happens & whether some gentle words or more serious measures are needed. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The content of this section concerning the use of the term 'Alf' as an honorary title comes from previous wiki editors. I agree it does need citations. That said, it doesnt strike me as 'original' research. What it claims is reasonably standard. Iv seen similar points made by scholars, particularly when discussing the case of the 'Elf' of Geirstaðr, a historical king whose gravemound came to be venerated and in this way acquired this name (title). Its been a while since Iv looked into that, but if it helps, I can track down a few sources to substantiate the section. Haldrik (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet you've repeatedly restored its deletion. Curious. Once again, none of the text matters without attribution (for obvious reasons), and all theories must be attributed to whoever produced them and be noted as that; a theory. I highly suggest admins take a look at Haldrik's conduct on the talk page to get an understanding of what they're dealing with here.

The article itself is a total mess. Vast amounts of the article are completely unreferenced and contain comments like "Probably Snorri misunderstood the text of Völuspá". What few references that are consist of either external links to "the free dictionary", Wiktionary, "Wolf" (whoever that may be - they're not mentioned further), vaguely refer to Orchard's dictionary (which I unfortunately do not have with me at the moment - I'd recommend someone check into this), or are scattered mentions used to support an original research hypothesis regarding colors. Extremely dubious.

Otherwise, thanks Llywrch. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Bloodfox needs to learn how to read academic references. Look above! It obviously refers to Kirsten Wolf who wrote, 'The Color Blue in Old Norse-Icelandic Literature'. Haldrik (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U

I just wanted to make everyone who's watching/interested aware of a newly opened RfC/U: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jamen Somasu. Thanks for your time. — KV5 • Talk • 01:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigate the blockage of User:Kariappa07 for sock-puppetry.

Earlier this week the user Kariappa07 (talk · contribs · block user) was given an indefinite block for being the sockpuppet of Rokkala (talk · contribs · block user). I noticed this as I have Kariappa07's user page on watch so I noticed that he was banned.

I'm bringing it up here as the case seems to be pretty weak. Rokkala has only made 3 edits since 2007 - all of which are to their own userpage - the only connection appears to be that they both made edits at a similar time on the 26 March 2010.

As Rokkala has only made edits to his own userpage since 2007 and Kariappa07 only started editing this year neither of them have backed up the other in a discussion or anything like that. Additionally neither of them have been warned before Kariappa07 was blocked indefinitely. I've taken a look through Kariappa07's edits and they also appear to be in good faith. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, before bringing this here, did you bother to find out all the socks of this user? Two others participating in the same discussion and edit war? —SpacemanSpiff 10:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I only investigated the user on my watchlist and the person they were accused of being a sock of, I didn't look at any other accounts. PS The protecting administrator has been notified. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done some further investigation and of note the other user involved is Centaurcentral (talk · contribs · block user) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And Sikolia07 (talk · contribs · block user). To be honest, looking at the contributions of the four editors, it seems more than a tad duckish. - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well when you look at them all together the case is more convincing than when you look at them individually. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The socks have been CU confirmed, so there's really no need to investigate any further since behavioral evidence also suggests that the accounts are related. Aside from all the accounts being duckish, here's a common action that suggest sockpuppetry. In an edit war, dormant account(s) like Kariappa07 that suddenly become active again and immediately joins the edit war on the same day and same side is always a very good sign that the account is a sock. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess I should investigate these things more carefully in future! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Or politely ask the blocking admin for an explanation before coming to a noticeboard... Woody (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

<shrug> When I read through the Unblocking policy it says that it should be looked at by an uninvolved administrator, so bringing it up here seemed like the natural thing to do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's normally worth discussing it with the blocking admin in the first instance- with YM having CU access, it's possible that he had access to more information than he'd revealed, but there's no harm in getting it reviewed by third parties. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record  Confirmed CU YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight requests moving to OTRS effective today

I am pleased to advise you that, effective immediately, requests for oversight/suppression will be accepted using the OTRS system. Please bear with us as the Oversight team becomes accustomed to this new method of receiving and replying to requests. We will strive to maintain timely service.

If you have found yourself reporting concerns to the oversight mailing list, please take a moment to add the new email address to your list of contacts: oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org

We look forward to continuing to work with the community in protecting the privacy of editors and others.

For the Oversight team,
Risker (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP:RPP

RPP is backlogged. Again. A few more admin eyes there would be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the backlog at RPP. Two hours of requests is not, in any sense of the word, a backlog. Also, as you may not have noticed, most of the pages there were protected prior to you posting this comment. That's not really your fault though; the people who protected them should have noted that they were handled. As a side note, I did not go to RPP because of your notice here; it's on my watchlist as well. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was one of those people. After protecting some pages, they were already noted though that the page was protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just this articular backlog- it seems to be one of the many areas that are chronically understaffed by admins, so I hoped to attract the attention of more with this post. Thanks to both for your help, though! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How often are there old requests where the article is genuinly under rapid fire vandalism/extreeme edit warring, where a couple of hours makes a big difference? It seems to me that whenever I check there, requests have either 1) been dealt with, or 2) are borderline cases that I would rather leave to RPP regulars to allow a bit of consistency in response, and because of their nature (not may reverts per day) won't come to any harm by being left a while. Peter 09:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nürburgring lap times

Resolved

 – wrong venue - editor advised of options

That article is about lap times on a racing circuit. In my opinion "lap times" on a racing circuit are not notable for a general Encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I have thus put deletion tag on the article however user:LiamE removed it with the following explanation: the massive number of references to ring lap times in media and by car companies themselves warrants an articles detailing such times. I contest that there are "massive number of references to ring lap times in media", at least in the relevant media and even if they were that it is enough for having a Wikipedia article. There are other options like merging with the Nürburgring circuit article. I request an admin puts back the tag and there is a proper discussion about the article.  Dr. Loosmark  11:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Er no. Your stated reason for the PROD [46] was that you don't believe that an encyclopedia should carry articles about lap times. Well that's one view, but you'd need to gain consensus on that view. The proper venue is Talk:Nürburgring lap times but I don't envisage much success in getting the article deleted. WP:PROD is for deletions that are not likely to be contested or are routine, which is not exactly going to be the case here I feel. Pedro :  Chat  11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pedro re the PROD. If you really think the subject of the article is non-notable, WP:AFD is thataway >>>>>>>> Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok.  Dr. Loosmark  12:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the problem is, this isn't the place for it. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Revdelete, redux

Revdelete is a Really Good Thing(tm) and I see a lot of admins are taking advantage of RD4 before sending these revisions off to oversight. I just thought I'd drop a line to admins to take note what RD4 actually says: use a generic reason for deletion prior to suppression, not "RD4" or "phone number", etc. While I guess I should hope we could trust admins, there's a reason these are pulled up to suppression and not just blocked from admin view. So this is just a gentle reminder to admins, please use a generic summary in your deletions so as not to draw attention to those deletions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just learning this new revdel thing, and admit I'm confused by the instructions. I'm supposed to use it only in limited cases (avoid abuse of power) and use a summary so that others can scrutinize that I'm not abusing this power, but supposed to make the summaries fuzzy enough to make it unclear exactly what the case is in many situations? Some clarification please? DMacks (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's something I've been struggling with too and would love an answer for that one. I've been deleting with "inappropriate content" but that might cause others to scrutinize it (and has if you look at my talk page). It should become obvious once it becomes promoted to suppression that it was an RD4 deletion, but before then, it might actually attract attention due to looking out-of-process. Does anyone have any better suggestions? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Use the RD3 option from the drop-down menu? Something that needs to oversighted probably qualifies as "purely disruptive", but that description is generic enough to avoid attracting much attention, I would have thought. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying RD4 really wouldn't be that big of a problem. Prodego ^talk 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... How about a code phrase like "R2-D2 simplified"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've refactored "redaction before oversighting" (RD#4) to address this. It's a new tool so as people use it, wording improvement is (hopefully) to be expected. Is the new wording clearer? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why there's so much of a fuss over this. Once inappropriate content has been hidden by a sysop, only sysops can look at it thereafter. Does it make *that* much of a difference if it's flagged by a sysop as inappropriate? Stifle (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally no, in practice with 500 - 1000 active admins, having a "private information not suited for admin viewing! About to be removed shortly!" flag, even at admin level, isn't okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still way better than the previous situation, where in the few minutes between posting and oversight, it was visible to everyone... ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 10:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's this, am I reading a backhanded compliment about our response time for a change? Keegan (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not backhanded at all—I've made a few reports to the Oversighters in my time, and I've always found the response to be incredibly rapid and extremely helpful! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey player

Resolved

The {{Infobox ice hockey player}} RfC has just been closed (by a bot). An uninvolved admin is needed, please, to make the necessary change. Code from the last time this was done may be found near the top of the talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kind of begging the question, no? –xeno^talk 22:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The pornstar, the metaller and the religious fanatic

Our old friends the Westboro Baptist Church have issued a press release on the death of Ronnie James Dio (real name Ronald James Padavona), claiming, among other things, that he's the uncle of minor porn star Gen Padova, presumably on a "they both start with Pad…" reasoning. (It's clearly false—Dio was an only child, so has no nieces pornstar or not.) Since then, there's been a low-level battle-of-the-IPs on Padova's article trying to insert this. Can people keep an eye on this—I can't imagine this gets watched much. – iridescent 20:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected Gen Padova for a week. NW (Talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I never heard of Gen but now I have. The Westboro Baptist Church is called a "hate group" by Wikipedia. There should be a reference. Otherwise, BP is a "hated oil company" and ExxonMobil "a devilish company that caused the Alaska oil spill" and every American leader can be rightly called "hated by some". Maybe we can find a reference to them being a anti-gay church? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Are you even bothering to read the articles you're commenting on? The fact that the WBC is classified as a hate group by the SPLC is clearly cited, even if it's not obvious already that this is a hate campaign. "Hate group" doesn't mean that other people hate them; it means that they hate other people. – iridescent 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, blindsighted by porn. Thank you for clarifying hate group. My English is fairly good but not perfect. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else the WBC has introduced me to some fresh porn. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting edits in an article's history

Is there a page where I can request that an admin remove an edit from an article's history? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here? I suppose with the new RevDel finally being rolled out to the administrator corps, a new process page may be necessary. –xeno^talk 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFO. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But maybe it's not an oversight matter (could just be WP:RD2, for example). –xeno^talk 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case, ther's a phone number involved, so maybe oversight is the correct place. Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's already been removed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 'tis. For stuff like that, keep a bookmark to Special:Emailuser/Oversight. –xeno^talk 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Or even oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org (see notice further up the page) Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That would actually be oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. —DoRD (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I sure hope that Special:Emailuser/Oversight continues to work, I like not having to log into my email account and having the copy sent to my email for record keeping and follow-up. –xeno^talk 22:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: It does.)

It does, indeed; that was actually one of the better ideas someone came up with, and we made sure the email address was changed as part of the move to OTRS. More than half of our emailed oversight requests come from that page. Risker (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Smart cookie, whoever suggested that... –xeno^talk 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Title unprotection needed

Can someone please un-salt Quintard Mall? Someone made an article at Quintard Mall (Oxford, Alabama) that should be moved to this title, but for some reason, Quintard Mall is salted. Unprotect please. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but article has been previously AFD'd. If it doesn't make it this time, it'll have to go again. Rodhullandemu 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA...

...is heavily backlogged, and needs attention. Thanks. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

...I'm awn it, boss. SGGH ^ping! 23:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Boss? That has a nice ring to it. ;) The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for second admin opinion at WP:RFPP

I have requested that Junior Apprentice be protected at WP:RFPP and wish a second admin opinion on this request. Please read the request, it's discussion and the article history. Thanks, KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mrzeleznik & User:Yurazeleznik

I noticed this when the WP:Article Wizard was damaged by Mrzeleznik.

Mrzeleznik (talk · contribs) & Yurazeleznik (talk · contribs) have virtually identical contributions and look like the same user.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is likely innocent, the editor not being used to WP conventions (or even just forgetting their password). I have however moved Yurazeleznik's original userpage to User:Yurazeleznik/Yura Zeleznik since it was a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and noted the action to them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Portal images

After the conversion of the {{Portal}}, a lot of portal image templates are now within the list of most used templates. Instead of cluttering RFPP, could someone have a go and protect the dangerous ones? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a backup at WP:AIV

Could somebody kindly take a look at WP:AIV? Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice,  Done! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Accidental page moves

Resolved

 –  Done as requested. –xeno^talk 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I had accidentally moved two articles and their talk pages, could somebody please restore them properly so their edit histories are repaired? Sorry for the mayhem, should have read the article names more carefully...

The articles I had moved are:

• Blah Blah Blah (song)
• Bla Bla Bla

Thanks in advance. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 20:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Template Series uw-idt

Hi all. I noticed we do not have a standardized set of user warnings addressing the removal of image/media file deletion tags (non-speedy deletion tags - e.g. Template:Di-no license) by editors without first addressing the concern noted by the tag. I've drafted a set of templates (loosely based off the uw-tdel template series) in my userspace:

• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-idt1
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-idt2
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-idt3
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-idt4

Any input/thoughts/improvements (feel free to make changes directly to the drafts) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be brought to, and discussed at, WT:UW. –xeno^talk 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Left notice at WT:UW. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge request

Can an admin please look at the discussion at Occupied Palestinian Territory regarding the proposed merge to Palestinian territories? The discussion is mainly several months old but was never closed, and the merge was never completed. Since it is quite controversial and I foresee objections, I'd appreciate if an admin would close the discussion and gage consensus rather than do it myself and go ahead with the merge on my own. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: there is also a small discussion of the merge here. Breein1007 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

General discussion - community ban discussion durations

Existing policy ( Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions ) says that if the community initiates a discussion to ban a user from Wikipedia, that the discussion should be allowed to run for a minimum of 24 hrs and then be closed by an uninvolved administrator. To quote the relevant paragraph:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

In recent discussion on the Arbcom announcements talk page ( Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Community ban enacted ) there was some discussion and concern regarding the duration of 24 hours. I wanted to float the topic here with a wider audience to see if there's interest in changing the duration.

In my opinion - The fundamental tension here is between keeping discussions relatively civil and constructive, and between letting them run long enough that all persons and all perspectives are aired thoroughly. Some ban discussions end up being relatively unambiguous unanimous supports, but many involve people for whom some segment of the community feels some remaining friendship or respect, or where some feel that the prospective banned party was baited or picked on in ways that have not been addressed yet; those ban proposals are more contentious. There has been an unfortunate but clear trend that the longer such discussions go, the more combative they become. I believe that this was a good part of the reasoning by which the duration was set at 24 hrs - as a balance between including enough people, and keeping it short enough that the larger more hostile discussions didn't develop.

24 hrs is not enough to guarantee that all parties who might want to have some comment will actually be able to do so, however. We let many other contentious issues (article deletion, approving new admins, etc) run for days or weeks. This particular policies time line is almost uniquely short, in terms of community-input decisions on Wikipedia.

There is also the question of how civility issues - in this case, how respectful and constructive the discussion is (or is not) collide with a desire to have an opportunity for all viewpoints to be aired fairly and reasonably completely.

We have had incidents in the past where comments in ban discussions were clear personal attacks on the proposed banned party, or on other discussion participants, and where the tone of the discussion degenerated into nonconstructive insults rather than topical conversation. We have existing policy and precedent that insulting or attacking blocked or banned users is not permitted ("dancing on people's graves").

So - posed for discussion and review - is the 24 hr minimum run the best choice for length of time? Would switching to a longer time be better, say 3 days to a week? Would switching to a longer soft minimum time (say, 3 days or a week) but with uninvolved admins allowed to terminate it and determine consensus early in case of increasingly hostile discussion (say, after 24-48 hrs at hard minimum) be better? Can we come up with policy, discussion format, or other ideas that help focus discussion in constructive forms and minimize the disruptive or abusive behaviors we've sometimes seen in such discussions? Are there other aspects, or other forms of solution, that people can think of and would like to propose as alternatives?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd maybe change the wording to use a phrase such as "a bare minimum of 24 hours". But as with many things, I think it comes down to judgment. Any discussion, if closed too soon, is prone to creating more problems than it solves. But after 24 hours, if consensus is clear, then there probably isn't much to be gained from keeping a discussion open. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

24 hours does seem short, and out-of-step with other such discussions. In this particular case, I think that there was a clear consensus: opposes were clearly outnumbered, and were primarily based on redundancy, an issue that I think was well addressed by the supports.

Thinking over the general case, 24 hours actually is fine for the normal ban discussion, because most generate no opposition whatsoever. I think a period of 72 hours would be more appropriate for a ban discussion that has generated some opposition.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

24 hours is ok when it's unanimous. In the case at hand users with strong opinions on the user showed up in mass and there's been no real discussion on the reasons for the ban. There were clearly a strong minority in opposition so it should have been opened for at least a week so as to reach an informed, representative community consensus. One week is a minimum when there's a significant opposition. Anyway the policy meant this as a minimum. Cenarium (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If it were not for the apparent negative effects of leaving contentious discussions to go longer, I would personally be happy with a week or longer; these are not usually time-urgent cases. But you seem to be overlooking that part of the rationale for the policy. These are not specious issues - we have had to block people and in one case indefblock someone for abusive behavior in a ban discussion, though I think they eventually came back. The shorter discussions are proving less hostile.

If you place no value on those concerns, I would appreciate it if you outright said so, rather than ignoring them. They are (as I understand it) the driving value that got us the short time in the first place, so not addressing them at all is not terribly useful in developing a new consensus. It's fine if your response is that we should ignore that and tough it out with potentially abusive discussions; I disagree, and existing consensus does, but re-evaluating consensus and discussing it more is what we're here for.

If you can address this point I would appreciate it, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the discussion which discussed this, could you please give the link if you have it ? Those concerns are legitimate but they have to be put into perspective with fairness and representativity. Also, even if discussions are short they can be brutal, and have been in the case at hand, on the other hand keeping open longer gives the opportunity to people with less abrupt views to weigh in. My personal opinion is that we should leave ban decisions to elected committees/courts. Cenarium (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

24h as a minimum is fine; it would be reasonable to run for a second, or possibly even a third day if there is significant opposition, but a week is far too long, as I've said (dramafest). See WP:ANI#Community Ban of indef blocked user Frei Hans which is quite ripe at over 48h. Consider also the case of a discussion that's a lead balloon; it will be closed in minutes to hours. The purpose of bans is to protect the project from disruption and to enforce community norms. This is correct. I speak from experience here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

you can get to a consensus in 24h in really obvious stituations ... otherwise most discussions need a lot of talking beteen the violator and the person who brought the case and an admin might even need to ask questions to probe the case... the major threat to civility has nothing to do with 24h but has everything to do with groups of friends trying to taking sides.. we need to find a way to keep the tag teams out of ANI... the admin noticeboard just needs a report of what they did and maybe some explanation for why they did it... anything else just turns into a vote.. or worse it turns into a circus Arskwad (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My view is that ban discussions can and will turn nasty given the wrong conditions, but the answer is not to keep them short to reduce the impact, but to step up to the plate and bite the bullet (and any other metaphor you can think of) and address the underlying conduct issues that lead people to make attacks on each other and the editor being discussed. I would also distinguish between ban discussions where the editor is blocked (and unable to respond to such attacks, except maybe by off-wiki actions that should be ignored as taunting) and ones where the editor under discussion is allowed to participate. When an editor is blocked, we still need to avoid attacking them. Rather than say "X is a <insert personal attack here> so and so", say "the RfC on X showed consensus that he repeatedly engaged in behaviour Y" or "the SPI demonstrates that socking has taken place and continues to take place". It might seem like unnecessary verbosity, but if you take the time to lay out the reasons for the instinctive response you would type first, then it helps reduce the tension of such discussions. Also, subthreads should be kept under control and shut down if they become unproductive, and hectoring (where someone responds to all those disagreeing with them and tries to start an argument with them) should be avoided as well.

A more radical proposal, but in my view the single biggest step that could be taken to reduce the tension in ban discussions, is to not have them start immediately after a precipitating incident (when emotions are running high - and let's be frank here, some people are adept at taking advantage of emotions to whip up support for bans). When you start ban discussions immediately, you get inherent bias towards those involved in that precipitating incident. A very simple step would be to introduce a delay (24 hours) before a ban discussion is started (though frivolous ban proposals could be removed immediately, and for any ban proposal to stay there, you would need someone to second it, like you do for an RfC - the 24-hour clock would start once the proposal had been seconded). Anyone who felt they had to comment IMMEDIATELY in support or opposition of a ban proposal would have clearly lost perspective and they are better off sleeping on what they want to say.

So you would have (i) proposer (with rationale and evidence), (ii) seconder, (iii) someone watching the noticeboard would formally certify it as a valid proposal for a community ban discussion and set a start time and add a standard warning to keep the discussion civil and check that the editor concerned had been notified (they can add their statement at any time). People then consider what has been said and once the start time arrives they make their comments and things go as normal. Now, this may seem too formal, but in my opinion the delay is crucial to decouple the subsequent discussion from the drama associated with the precipitating incident (usually the latest in a long string of such incidents). A ban discussion is a serious matter, and there should be a delay to allow calm and sober reflection. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

I understand the interest in keeping the discussions productive and not attacking the potential banee; I am somewhat concerned about the practicalities of shutting down subthreads, calming down hectoring and provocations in the discussion, etc. I think we've got agreement that these things would be positive throughout Wikipedia discussions, yet we still have problems with them, even over a year into a general civility improvement drive. I don't believe it's necessarily hopeless to fix it in a particular area like this one, but it's a challenge.

Along the lines of "it's not hopeless", one thing I thought of was to separate out the opinion poll part (support, oppose, whatever and a position justification statement) from the discussion part (a following section, which allows freeform responses etc). Have it be a format standard both that nobody responds to another editors opinion poll statement in that section (response has to go below in the discussion), and that any comment which is felt to be in violation of reasonable decorum will be collapsed by any uninvolved administrator (leaving only the support/oppose/neutral and signature).

Responding to the delay ideas, I think a delay since last active incident is a good idea. Even a week wouldn't hurt.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The delay idea is a noble concept, but too subject to gaming. It would make any problematic editor that screwed up royally every six days difficult to ban. Some of the most problematic editors have a real cadre of supporters, and there's no reason to give them another reason to attempt to declare a ban invalid or unenforceable.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get your reasoning here. A ban discussion looks at an editor's entire editing history (or it should do), not just the past six days. I'm not saying ignore the precipitating incident. Just have a discussion in x hours time about what happened x hours ago. People don't forget what happened in the past, you know, and they can link to what happened then. In my mind, the key is whether ban discussions should be held while emotions are running high, or when people have calmed down. It seems obvious to me but then I have the patience to wait. I'm not so sure (given the instant gratification culture that we have today) that everyone is capable of going away, noting down their reasoning, and coming back later. I know that when article deletion discussions are going on, I sometimes take notes and don't comment until a few days have passed or I've been able to research the matter a bit more. I think the same should apply to ban discussions. If you were unsure about a ban discussion, would you oppose it on the grounds that you needed more time to look into the editing history, or are ban discussions just a poll of people's subjective opinions? There is an argument that community ban discussions are just a poll of opinions (has this guy exhausted our patience), rather than a careful analysis of the evidence (some say that is what ArbCom is for). But I think that the community increasingly needs to be seen to have presented a fair and careful analysis during ban discussions (sometimes it is possible to point to an RFC, sometimes not), rather than carrying out a poll of subjective opinions. I would say that in the case of established users, an RFC first is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was reacting to the "last active incident" language, which would imply that a new incident would restart the clock. In this proposal, I'm curious as to how you would handle discussion of disruption that occurred after whatever you chose as the trigger incident that started the clock.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Our current system is generally fine, both theoretically and practically. Whether there is a single user in the form of a clerk, admin, or more or otherwise, all noticeboards have inadequate regulation. Changing that system does not change anything because at the end of the day, most uninvolved admins/users are either reluctant or hesitant to enforce civility in relation to certain users (sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not); that is why that regulation will consistently be inadequate. On the other extreme, the option of excessive and unnecessary process wonkery and formality is always an available option in arbitration, should ArbCom deem it necessary for their processes. We have a million matters going on at any one time; ArbCom have a percentage of those matters, most of which are raised on the mailing list. We need something that works in practice, and does not drag down our resources with unhelpful process wonkery. Succinct issues are addressed; verbose ones and complex ones are the ones that end up at ArbCom anyway - if ArbCom does not have enough, we'd be very happy to pass more disputes to them to resolve, even the simple ones that require a straightforward ban. As the consensus that is developing here already suggests, 24 hour minimum is fine; discretion needs to be used when consensus isn't straightforward, so it can go for a bit longer in those cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• I would say 24 hours bare minimum is fine (and would support the word "bare" being inserted). Stifle (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think that 24 hours as a bare minimum is fine; but I think that ban discussions really ought be held here (WP:AN) rather than WP:ANI. –xeno^talk 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. I can't be the only admin who prefers to keep up to date via AN rather than ANI. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Would having a pointer posted at AN be good enough, or should the whole discussion only be done at AN? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
      • If a community ban discussion erupts in the middle of an ongoing ANI thread, a pointer from AN to the ANI thread would be fine. For a ban proposal made from scratch, I don't see why it wouldn't start at WP:AN. ANI is for incidents, a ban proposal is typically initiated only after several incidents. –xeno^talk 20:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Technically, WP:AN is for notices (or should be), and WP:ANI for incidents. Where to have longer discussions that start from scratch has never been clear, and attempts to start a separate venue are met with cries that it is an attempt to resurrect WP:CSN (when something off-putting like that happens, it can hamper future attempts to make changes as people point to that and say "no" without actually engaging in discussion). Your point that some ban discussions "erupt" from ANI threads is exactly the point I was making about actions being taken in anger and the need to have a cooling-off period before such discussions start. You will typically get those who are participating at the ANI thread participating at the ban discussion, and that sometimes skews things towards a knee-jerk decision, rather than a calm and reasoned decision. I would at least support the right for any administrator to step into a contentious ban discussion and say "ok, this is getting silly, let's stop this now, everyone should calm down and come back in a few days/week's time" (though that administrator may need to carry out a block if the editor in question is being currently disruptive, or if people edit war to keep an argumentative discussion open). Clearly, the same thing shouldn't be done the second time round, and the discussion should be left to run. Carcharoth (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
        • My thoughts on the appropriate venue have not changed since Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 4#What is the correct venue for a community or topic ban proposal? –xeno^talk 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Another voice to agree with the "bare minimum" interpretation. It is a judgment call; the more consensus is fully clear, and the more continuing discussion is creating more heat than light, the more it makes sense to close fairly soon (with 24h as a bare minimum). However, by and large we tend to leave longer time for discussions since not everyone spends every single minute on wikipedia. In the case at hand, I'm pretty convinced further discussion would not have changed the outcome. However, the discussion was not publicized at other locations the same person was being discussed, the comments (while not all wonderful) were not spiralling out of control, and the numerical balance of opinions was in the zone we consider discretionary in those areas where we do have to count noses. So, going forward, I think we should adjust our policies so that future discussions similar to this one would tend to run for longer. I don't think we need to be prescriptive, but changing the wording so that it more clearly says "you should not close before 24h" rather than necessarily recommending closing after 24h would make sense. Martinp (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales does not edit everyday. Neither does many well known Wikipedians. So 24 hours bypasses some. The number of different periods in Wikipedia should be kept to a minimum. AFDs and RFAs are 7 days. Too many different periods and we risk having a complicated bureaucracy. The risk of short periods is that the exchange of information gets short changed. The risk of long periods is that the goal of banning people may be made a bit more difficult, particularly if unwarranted. I think the worst editor known to man would be banned whether the discussion period is 24 hours or 24 days. Why not ask Newyorkbrad's opinion. He is a lawyer and knows the theory behind due process and fairness. I'd like to hear his opinion before I cast a vote. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons 24 hours was settled upon was that 24h is the length of a day, so a ban discussion won't get closed when half the world was asleep during say, an 8-hour ban discussion. I think 24h is long enough for most discussions, major points will in all liklihood have been raised and if a consensus can be determined it can be closed. These sorts of discussions are especially contentious and quickly become a quagmire with they involve editors who are in the all-too-frequent ethnic wars on wiki. These things are often a judgment call, balancing factors aplenty. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What Rlevse said. 24 minimum, but not 24 hours bare minimum (implying that 24 hours is seldom enough time). If a discussion has a consensus after 24:01 hours (and they usually do, or else never will), close it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'll repeat what I said. If a discussion is becoming contentious, shutting it down in a minimum time is akin to sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. If a discussion bogs down (e.g. at AfD or FAC) what is done is to restart it with warnings to anyone who has been disrupting it (though the option to close and ignore the disruption is also available). Quite why the restart option is not used with ban discussions, I'm not sure. I would encourage those who close ban discussions to at least consider closing them as "restart later" if that could be considered helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, Floquenbeam. Our own article on consensus includes 3 key ideas in the first 2 paragraphs: a) general agreement, b) group solidarity of belief, and c) need for "serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member". Now, we are a huge community and not everyone (fortunately) will be motivated to participate in each discussion. However, as long as we want to call something consensus we have a pretty strong obligation not only to ensure "major points" have been raised, but that those who want to participate can, and that those who have participated can revisit, read other opinions, and judge how their own thinking is evolving. That is hard to do in 24h. We may in exceptional cases decide the community disruption caused by a genuine consensus-seeking discussion is so high that a faster, more expedient resolution is needed. But when we close a discussion at 24h, we do not have consensus: we are doing some form of opinion sampling, preferring the snap opinions of those involved in a situation and above-average in wiki activity. I have wondered whether standards of community behavior would not improve if we had a "community ostrasicm" process, whereby e.g. any user would be obligated to sit out for 3 months if they were perceived as disruptive by at least 50 (or other number) other community members. But I'm not sure if on balance that would be a good idea, and it is something quite different than the philosophy behind community banning. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would in actuality be helping the project (in response to both of the ideas/arguments/approaches presented by Carcharoth and Martinp); the so-called problem really does not rest with the current system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Martinp, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Quickpolls, which had its test period before you came aboard. It was something similar to the "community ostracism" you propose, & had mixed results. -- llywrch (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've never seen a ban discussion (including topic bans) that I thought went according to a fair, open, and reasonable process. I think a lot of the process around here could be improved (see suggestions), but the banning process seems particularly problematic. Typically ban discussions start off with what seems like an off-the-cuff suggestion with no evidence or detailed summary brought for uninvolved people to get an idea what's going on (the example brought up of Frei Hans' ban is a case in point; having briefly searched ANI and his RfC/User, I was unable to find the smoking gun). In many cases no attempt is made to solicit a defense from the user in question (as in Frei Hans). Since no evidence is provided upfront and the user often does not submit a defense, typically all the editors who do weigh in have inside knowledge from their long experience (involvement) with the user in question. There's no requirement that the editors who weigh in to disclose their prior involvement or even provide their reasoning on the basis for the ban - note in Frei Hans most reasons could be summarized as "he's disruptive and assumes bad faith". In comparison, one could expect to detailed reasoning at an AfD for some hardly-notable article which could then go on for several days, which seems incongruous. It's not clear that bans are recorded (or proposed for notification) in one central place for the scrutiny of people who are interested in offering uninvolved opinions in the interest of maintaining justice, meaning that such people have to keep a continuous eye on AN or ANI instead. A notification board dedicated to notifying and recording these incidents is something that would be easy to do and it is hard to understand why it is not done. In comparison, I can keep a continuous eye on all sorts of articles of all sorts of topics which go through AfD (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Websites). If there's a user who I particularly like and I worry that he could get banned for being extra-bold, the only recourse I have is to watch his userpage, which is rather hit or miss. Bans are awfully serious and I don't see why are treated so casually. Someone said to avoid a drama-fest, but there are currently several drama-fests on ANI that have been there for days, and they just continue since people keep posting, even though some of them are obviously pointless and based in few diffs or evidence and should be closed and redirected to some other forum. Obviously I'm way in the minority here but I don't understand it. I keep an eye on ANI and I don't see many bans so I can't see how handling bans in a graceful manner which does not appear to an outsider (or an insider) to be lynching would be an overwhelming burden. II | (t - c) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide some input into this discussion, but most of what I would have said has already been said by others. I agree that 24 hours should be a presumptive minimum for community-ban discussions, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, and that the discussion should go on longer if there is useful dialog still taking place (i.e., input from new commenters and/or people making new points, as opposed to the same small group of people making their points more and more stridently). Ideally, at the end of a ban discussion, editors might still disagree in good faith whether a decision to ban or not to ban was warranted, but there should not be room to disagree whether the process was fair or whether a consensus to ban was or wasn't reached.

A point occasionally overlooked is that often a user who is the subject of a community-ban discussion is blocked at the time. When this is the case, other editors participating here should monitor that user's talkpage, and copy any relevant comments here so that they can be part of the discussion (this is what we ask the arbitration clerks to do when a comparable situation arises on the arbitration pages).

Administrators are told that "blocking is a serious matter," and of course banning is as well, even more so. We describe Wikipedia as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but to a banned user (who is respecting the ban), Wikipedia has become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—except you." Obviously, that doesn't mean that we won't ban people who need to be banned, when the net weight of their participation is negative (whether through offensive or nasty behavior, POV pushing, inability to contribute competently, or whatever) and there is no meaningful prospect of improvement. But such a decision may never be made lightly (and I do not suggest that it is).

The ArbCom's ban appeals subcommittee (BASC) that was formed one year ago has been working efficiently and is the appropriate place for users who have been community-banned to submit appeals for lifting or modification of the ban. One issue on which policy is not entirely clear, as I perceive it, is whether the community expects arbitrators to address reinstatement requests themselves or whether, and under what circumstances, they should be returned to this noticeboard for further discussion. At some point there should probably be some further discussion of this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp to keep this open another 48 hrs - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Bad image list

Resolved

 – Image is working now. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just added File:Pullcondom2.jpg to en:Portal:Sexuality/Featured picture. Please could this be added to the exceptions on the bad image list. The use is not vandalism. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't seem to be working. The image is there on the subpage, but not on the portal. Maybe it needs to have Portal:Sexuality added as an exception as well? --Simon Speed (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done- and on my end, it appears to have worked. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. It seems to be working now. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reversion restriction on an article?

The Tony Abbott article was recently fully protected due to edit warring. Per a message left by the protecting admin on his talk page, and a request at WP:RFUP, I've reduced the protection level to semi-protection, backed up by an edit notice.

The question of 3RR has been raised on the talk page in response to this change. I know that we can place editors under revert restrictions, but what about articles?

Subject to consensus, I'd like to place this article under a 1RR/24hours restriction (i.e. a "day" to be defined as 24 hours from the time of reversion, not as between 00:00 and 23:59 that calendar day) applicable to all editors. If this is agreed to, the edit notice can be amended to notify editors of the restriction. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I support putting this article under a 1RR/day restriction. The edit warring appears to have started in early May. Suggest leaving a note about the 1RR on the article talk, so that new editors will be aware of it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ed, what I propose is to extend the edit notice that appears whenever an editor tries to edit the article (try editing the article and you'll see the notice). I'll not add the notice yet, want to give time for more comments. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit of context may help in making a decision. Abbott is the federal Opposition Leader of Australia in a pre-election environment - an election is expected in September or October by most analysts. Abbott's own party is divided almost 50/50 between religious conservatives (including himself) and free-market liberals and the leadership has changed three times since the last election, to the delight of the local media. The media here unfortunately isn't of the highest standard, leading to one dispute after another over content, which then becomes disputes about where the content came from, and such (as some outlets and commentators are pretty biased towards the Opposition, but it's further confused by some Opposition supporters in the media wanting a change of leadership.) As such, if only to prevent silly arguments and get people to discuss stuff on the talk page, I'd be agreeable to a 1RR on this article. Orderinchaos 04:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've imposed the restriction and added to the edit notice. Logged on the article's talk page and at WP:RESTRICT. Admins and above are not subject to the restriction (to allow us the ability to deal with any issues that need attention) and the reversion of clear vandalism is also excepted from the restriction. I envisage the restriction remaining in place until the underlying issue is settled, at which time 3RR can be reapplied. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR for at least a few months looks like a good idea, but I am not sure we should be exempting admins and above from normal editing rules. If a problem arises, I hope that our admin corps knows how to use discretion and seek review if their actions are potentially questionable. Put more simply, any admin acting as an editor at that article is an editor, while anyone acting as an uninvolved administrator should not be making substantive content edits anyway. I am going to tweak the language in the edit notice a little - fix it or talk there if it needs more. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. All editors need to be held to the same editing rules. I would categorically oppose any such exemption. Resolute 16:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that admins and above would have the common sense not to abuse their positions and edit war on the article. The reason I posted that exemption was explicitly to allow an admin to intervene if it proved necessary. The article is only semi-protected until 1 June, after which IPs will be able to edit it. If consensus is that the restriction will apply to all, it could create a problem in future. I've got no personal interest in the article, and am not intending to get too involved in it if I can avoid doing so. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As an admin myself, I'm happy to abide by the restriction and don't see why it shouldn't apply to all involved. Nobody should be above taking things to the talk page to discuss them, and reversion of clear vandalism is a reasonable exception for any editor anyway (it's built into 3RR and other similar guidelines/policies). Orderinchaos 18:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for upload help

I would like to post a picture of myself on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Idaho,_2010 Is there an administrator that would be willing to post if I were to send them a picture?

Thank you,

Tom Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alipse (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page suggesting Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission given that Mr. Sullivan is a senatorial candidate, this will need verification.Smallman12q (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My User page

I have just relaised it is still protected from years ago, could someone kindly unprotect it as I want to edit it. Thank you.  Giacomo  18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and if any of you want to sign up to my new category - be brave and encourage others to realise it they know the facts others can sorth the spelling and grammar and writing. - Category:Dyslexic editors.  Giacomo  18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't sign up for it, you barred me. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully editors will nominate only themselves to this new category, and not start listing others based on perceived typographical deficiencies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I'm not dyslexic, this category is a great idea. There have been times in the past, when I've got annoyed with editors, not realizing they had the condition. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

White-balance picture

Resolved

 – no action needed, file has rotated -- Luk ^talk 11:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Could a sysop update File:Jesus College rowing jersey 1840s.jpg with the white-balanced version at the commons? (This is the current picture for today's featured article and is thus protected.) Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That commons image looks botched to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, it is going to rotate off in five minutes, anyway. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Verbal performed

A review of my actions is welcome. I don't want to undermine anyone's actions. Have a look at User talk:Verbal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been consensus at the talkpage, as noted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If an admin makes a questionable block and then promptly goes offline for an extended period of time, and is not available to discuss that block, then I don't think it's a problem to overturn it. Consensus seems to support the unblock, as LHvU has noted. MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge request

I am reposting this because for some reason it was ignored and got archived.

Can an admin please look at the discussion at the talk page of Occupied Palestinian Territory regarding the proposed merge to Palestinian territories? The discussion is mainly several months old but was never closed, and the merge was never completed. Since it is quite controversial and I foresee objections, I'd appreciate if an admin would close the discussion and gage consensus rather than do it myself and go ahead with the merge on my own. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: there is also a small discussion of the merge here. Breein1007 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I get a second opinion?

I'm a bit rusty on the admin tools so I'd like someone else to take a look at this. I warned User:Tom12350 for a personal attack earlier today (it was his first such offense). When he re-appeared as User:Jonny357 (obvious because he posted the exact same edit as his previous identity did to WP:Reference desk/Science), I blocked that account with a polite note about sockpuppetry. Did I do the right thing? There is also a self-righteous IP involved, but he seems to be no problem.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good block; I would probably have blocked Tom as well, but meh. Tim Song (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Conference: Invitation to Wikipedians

Feel free to attend. User:Suomi_Finland_2009/Wikipedia_Improvement_Conference_2010 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, the conference was scheduled at a bad time. I just found out that this weekend is an American holiday, Memorial Day. Considered the unofficial start of summer, many Americans travel. Others go to see the Indianapolis 500 race. True, the whole world is not the USA but many readers are Americans. Anyway, there are at least four people attending (two making lengthy edits). Happy (or solemn) Memorial Day. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bank holiday in the UK, as well! I had a quick look earlier; is there any reason you couldn't simply extend the conference - making it a week long would give more people a chance to participate anyway - regardless of Federal and bank holidays.

Also: mentioning the free beer wouldn't hurt to drum up a few more attendees...!

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 16:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There was free sex, too, but someone removed the photo. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored. I mean, who doesn't want free sex with their Wikipedia conferences? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But who wants to have sex with a bunch of Wikipedians, free or otherwise LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I refer you (as I have done many of my friends [okay, okay, acquaintances]) to the study which showed regular editors are just as likely to be in a relationship as normal human beings. Or so they say :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR report backlog

WP:AN3 has a couple of requests that have been sitting there for several hours... thanks! Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --B (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Added one more now [47] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC needs closing

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering

• It's been a full 30 days now, and unfortunately the user in question has refused to participate and twice announced his "retirement" only to return and continue to engage in the same type of editing that led to this RFC. Could an uninvolved admin close this up so we can move on? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I planned on closing this in the next couple of days as there's still technically some hours left before a full 30 days has been up, but if it's what you want.... Note also that you can escalate to the next step in dispute resolution while the RfC/U is open if you wish - that's quite normal. For example, if you take it to ArbCom, it would be closed with the summary "proceeded to ArbCom" given the timing (or if you filed a request earlier and the case was accepted, the same summary would have been provided). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to go to ANI instead of ArbCom since it's hard to arbitrate with a brick wall that won't discuss his editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good on you for picking up on that (although I used ArbCom because it's the textbook example, that doesn't mean that it's the best way forward for most/all disputes, let alone this particular one). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I added an outside view just now on B9's serial WP:NOR violations. Hope I'm not too late. Skinwalker (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as views aren't posted after the RfC/U is closed, or as long as there isn't an expectation that the RfC/U can be paused for another 30 days, that's fine. I'm holding off closing until there's an outcome - this dispute can try to show other parties that they don't need to wait until the RfC is closed before they can move on - they can move on earlier than that, and there is more than one route to any given outcome (where the overall costs of time, effort and stress significantly vary for each route, depending on the nature of each dispute). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

UAA Backlog

Is the bot broken? I thought UAA was supposed to get a backlog notice posted when we reach 10 open reports. The bot is still functioning, as it's removing blocked users, but it's saying things like "17 remaining" yet not posting the backlog notice. Any ideas? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of my actions

Hi. I'm here from Talk:Faust Vrančić, where I arrived about a week ago to close a move request. Seeing the discussion there, I noted what seemed to be a lack of focus on sources, so I tried a new approach. Unsurprisingly, at least one editor is very unhappy with how things have worked out, so I'm posting here to request review of my actions.

I made a good-faith effort to help determine the appropriate name for the article, and I'm keen to learn from the experience. There might be something of the approach that's worth repeating, and it's also likelycertain that I made some mistakes. Thanks in advance for any comments, either here, there, or on my own talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the most uninvolved editor, since I awarded GTBacchus a barnstar for his attempt at stopping the drama going on there; anyway, I don't really any mistakes on his part. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice detailed paper trail which is good, but that doesn't mean a reviewer wouldn't appreciate a cliffnotes version alongside it. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I'm hesitant to summarize too much, because I'm likely to paint myself in a favorable light... :) The short version is that I said: "Hey, rather than comparing Google numbers, let's actually find and use a lot of sources, and see what kind of pattern emerges." This was either a good way out of an unproductive debate, or it was outright blackmail, depending who you ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• The source-based method for finding the correct name seems to me to be the only one that could actually work within policy. You done good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Having reviewed the discussion, my conclusion matched yours GTBacchus. 2 main criticisms. First I would make is that an unclear consensus (that is one that is not immediately obvious) is not necessarily a total lack of consensus - especially when only one editor is the problem. The second criticism is not directed at you, given that you weren't/aren't in much of a position to be able to address it, but hopefully someone else will address this problem as it is likely to impede the progress of that article on that matter, among others. The unhappy editor was editing disruptively, and should have been sanctioned - he is expected to avoid repeating the conduct that led to him being blocked (for disruptive editing) once every year since 2007, plus an additional two times this year. But yes, essentially, as SarekofVulcan puts it, you done good. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with you as far as DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is concerned, I fear. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog of unpatrolled pages

There is a really long list of unpatrolled New Pages [48] going back to 6th May. I've been chipping away at it but it's far more than 1 person can deal with. CosmicJake (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Check with Ironholds. He may be able to help - a lot. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of those I checked had already been edited by an established editor besides the article creator but not marked as patrolled - possibly because the default patrol interface is so tedious to work with. decltype (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only possible to mark as patrolled within the NPP interface, however it's possible to see new pages in recent changes. Hence a lot of new pages get patrolled by RC patrollers prior to being seen by NP patrollers. If it could be marked as patrolled if someone takes the tag off, that would seem to be a good idea. Also, as you say, that interface sucks chunky goat vomit, and it is easy to accidentally not mark the page as patrolled even after patrolling it, tagging it etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tim Song/Kissle is a recently-developed tool designed for NewPage patrolling and a decent one. Consider using that if anyone is going to consider patrolling. –MuZemike 18:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I'm just doing it manually, primarily because tools take time to learn how to use and I'm more concerned with familiarising myself with all the guidance; cleanup tags, deletion and notability criteria etc. If I try to automate the task before I'm really confident with these I'll just end up making more mistakes than I am already. The default interface is indeed tedious to work with - I'm particularly irritated by the fact it 'forgets' that I'm New Page Patrolling (even though I went to the page from the New Pages list) if I make an edit. More often than not there's something for me to do on the page (even if it's just adding a 'stub' marker to it) CosmicJake (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We're up to the 9th May now. :-) Perhaps there's a page where those who lurk around the back of the unpatrolled backlog can get together, compare notes and co-ordinate efforts? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies_affecting_deletion_outcome

I would like to request the input of the community regarding this matter. Feel free to remove this thread if it's in the wrong place. Thanks. Rohedin (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how we need an RfC at this stage. Surely the starting point for discussion should be here? And I find the title of the RfC somewhat overbroad and confusing, not necessarily guaranteed to attract editors with an interest in this particular topic. Rodhullandemu 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the news

Hello, first up I'd like to say that I enjoy using Wiki. I just find that when I want to go a news article in the 'in the news' section, i can never tell which link is the link to the article and which is a link to related stuff. Perhaps there could be a link next to every article, (e.g the bullet point that appears next to each one) that will always take you to the article itself.

For example:

"Horst Köhler (pictured) resigns as President of Germany." contains three links, one to his name, one to 'president' and one to 'germany'. It's not always clear which one will take me to the article about the president of germany resigning.

I know wiki is free to use and as I said it's a great source of info for me, this is just an idea that might make it a little easier for some people

Thanks for your time, Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.251.90 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You will notice, I hope, that the actual display is this:

Horst Köhler resigns as President of Germany.

The bold text for each story at In The News links you to the article that has been most recently updated (or created) to deal with the issues. No story at "In The News" ever appears without at least one bold link. Is this clearer now? Bencherlite^Talk 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed for RfM closure

Resolved

Admin needed for RfM closure. [49]

I count the votes in this RfM, the section above about "Greater Lebanon" and previous RfM from 2009 to 8 for the move with only 2 opposing. It needs to be noted that there is already an article called the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC

Since Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (WP:GSCC) was created from a discussion starting on this page, it seems appropriate to mention to editors here that everyone is invited to comment on an RfC on its continuation. Two requests for arbitration are now on the WP:RFAR page related to GSCC and some arbitrators have said they are interested in seeing how the RfC goes before deciding whether to take up a case.

User 2over0 began the RfC with this "Statement of concern":

"Articles related to climate change have been one of Wikipedia's problem areas for a number of years now. Most of the disruption boils down to often heated or uncivil disagreement over the proper application of WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCIRS, though sockpuppetry and single-purpose accounts out of touch with wider Wikipedia norms play their roles. Near the end of last year, the Copenhagen Summit on climate change and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy contributed to a surge in interest in this family of articles; that furor has largely died down now. Whether the long term or the short term patterns have been more problematic is an open question, but a few days into the new year the community established Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, giving uninvolved administrators wide leeway when acting to quell disruption in this topic area, and establishing a Requests for enforcement board for discussing the same.

"Several editors in the discussion establishing this extraordinary probation opined that the community should review it after a few months had passed. It has now been about five months, and I would like to open this question for review."

Please comment there. (This seems to be the first invitation on this page to comment there, but if I'm wrong about that, please just archive this.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is in the Centralized discussion box at the top of this page (thanks to NuclearWarfare for adding that), but more outside editors with creative solutions are very welcome. I pretty much never hang out at the Village pump, but a note to VPP or somewhere might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the "What links here" tool, there's a link to "Village Pump (policy)", but apparently that's just another link from the "Centralized discussion" box there. I'll now add roughly the same notice there (done [50]). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) -- Actually, that appears to have been the wrong spot for it (it's for policy and guideline proposals only), so I moved it to "Village Pump (proposals)" [51] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed ban or block of BenJack07

Resolved

 – and there was great rejoicing. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User: BenJack07 has been active on Wikipedia for almost a year now and his edits seem to be almost always disruptive in nature. He has been repeatedly warned about his behavior, but the warnings have had no effect, as he keeps making the same disruptive edits over and over, even after being warned. For example,

• Has attempted to create the article Jack Summerell, a vanity page, three times, ignoring the first two warnings.

• Also created Ben Summerell, which is presumably about a close relative.

• Twice created the inappropriate page Hurricane Jonas, even after being warned the first time; this is presumably a reference to the Jonas Brothers.

• Created an article Deadly Fart; has also vandalized the Wikipedia articles for flatulence and fart (see [52])

• Created an article Belguimtown which was widely considered to also be vandalism; see the afd.

• Keeps trying to add information about himself to the article on Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia and also to July 24; see [53], [54], [55], [56]; the most recent of these incidents occurred under a week ago, on May 27, 2010.

Anyway, this user has been warned many times to stop with his disruptive behavior, and he hasn't even responded to any of the warnings. I think some sort of action ought to be taken; either a ban or a block; I'll let the admins decide what the duration should be. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And the duration is indefinite. A review of edit shows no inclination to contribute positively here. Rodhullandemu 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Drunkest1

Resolved

This individual keeps making annoying changes to the de Havilland Mosquito article, and is refusing to reply to requests to stop. A warning tellin him this kind of thing is disruptive would be good. He's made four [57] disruptive reverts. Dapi89 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message on the editor's talk page asking them to discuss their changes. I don't see how this behavior is disruptive though. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

CSD patrol: Admin heads up

Resolved

Somebody has been creating tons of User and User Talk pages with G11 spam for the last couple of days (early June 2010). The names seem genuine enough and the text is advertising copied from the web. The rash of newly created spam content and the amount it is coming in at, suggest a concerted attack. I have been deleting as G11 and the patrollers have been busy tagging. Don't know what can be done besides deleting the pages and hoping the vandal(s) get bored and stop. Admin look at CAT:CSD#Pages_in_category is requested to try to stem the flow. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see, only the tagging by User:Mean as custard seems to be recent by someone sifting through pages that date back even to 2009, so thankless (and therefore thanks to both of you) but not an emergency.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I had not payed due attention to dates. I see now. Phew! Thanks for the heads up! -- Alexf^(talk) 12:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee - community ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Keegscee (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia by the community.  Sandstein  18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Administrative note - uninvolved admins reviewing this for closure should examine the community comments above at WP:AN#General discussion - community ban discussion durations, which have somewhat evolved the community ban best practices. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has had a very problematic recent history. User:PCHS-NJROTC recently asked for an Arbcom case to ban them, but was redirected back to the community as a more appropriate venue at this time. I am opening this proposal to seek a community ban of Keegscee at this time.

A previous AN ban proposal was floated, probably somewhat prematurely, on Feb 22nd ( [58] ). This more or less immediately followed his indefinite block by myself ( see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive598#Questionable comment at User:Keegscee.27s userpage ) for his openly self-admitted behavior of using open proxies and sockpuppet accounts to WP:HARASS and WP:HOUND editors he felt were not editing constructively here. Since then he has made threats on his talk page to continue that activity with other accounts, and continued to be abusive using sockpuppets including Cryogenic phil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 68.28.187.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), PhoenixPhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), LHSgolf2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and probably others I have missed.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Obvious_sock_is_obvious, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee/Archive and PCHS-NJROTC's case diffs immediately below.

PCHS-NJROTC's case

(cut and paste of PCHS-NJROTC's arbcom reference links / diffs section - summaries are his description)

• Keegscee was apparently a reformed vandal
• warning about incivility
• first warning about unacceptable humor; he was encouraging people to vandalize another wiki
• IP disputes action on Keegscee's talk page, and raises concerns about bias against religion
• warned again about immaturity unacceptable humor (encouraging people to vandalize another wiki)
• third warning about encouraging vandalism on other wikis
• uncivil reply to one of Keegscee's unacceptable warnings; looks like Keegscee was assuming bad faith and it got heated
• fourth warning about Keegscee's encouragement of vandalism
• AN/I about Keegscee's prolonged encourgement of vandalism at another wiki, an attempt to get along with Keegscee
• barnstar left by me, despite previous disputes, for getting along with a member of the wiki that he has demonstrated hate for
• AN/I about comment on Keegscee's userpage, ended in his indef block
• AN/I thread: Keegscee sockpuppet is blocked
• Keegscee's SPI
• community ban proposal at AN
• discussion took place on his talk page
• He is ulitmately blocked from editing his talk page and emailing users due to abuses of these privledges.

Current situation and ban proposal

We have persistent sockpuppetry, ongoing abuse of other editors, an explicitly stated opinion that using abuse to push other editors out of the Wikipedia project is a good thing. He has explicitly and openly adopted an abusive vigilante attitude towards others here and worked actively to pursue it, to the great detriment of the community and many individual users.

I believe that, though it will not put another physical barrier between this person and further abuse here, a community ban is appropriate and desirable at this time. I propose that he be indefinitely banned from editing, subject to the usual appeals process should he reform himself and desire to return. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support community ban, obviously. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia, nor does he demonstrate even a minimum level of maturity required to contribute here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support Oppose Neutral I maintain, per my suggestion on reforming AN and ANI currently on the AN talkpage, that Georgewilliamherbert should have attempted to contact Keegscee to allow him to submit a defense concurrently with the accusations so that this starts off on the right foot. My suggestions also include a requirement to disclose prior involvement. PCHS-NJROTC has a long history and was involved in collecting the evidence on both the sockpuppet investigations (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee/Archive). All of the evidence is from PCHS-NJROTC and much of it focuses on sockpuppetry. For the first SPI no CU was done because apparently little initial evidence was presented; the second found connection to the IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.28.187.112; however, the SPI report says Keegscee admitted to editing from his phone prior to the SPI investigation, and I don't think that's really sockpuppetry. That IP does have an odd edit, though. There's a statement at the end of the second CU that a list of editors (LittleTommyC, PhoenixPhan, Cryogenic phil, LHSgolf2009) are confirmed to be the same editor, but the CU Alison says "I'm not seeing any link to the previous accounts above". It's not entirely clear whether all these are, in addition to being connected to each other, also connected to Keegscee since Alison does not say that? Further confusing the issue is that the category Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PhoenixPhan does not include Keegscee, only the 3 confirmed sockpuppets. This should not be changed without a clear clarification from Alison. The ANI thread by Crossmr (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Obvious_sock_is_obvious) references a diff of someone immaturely teasing Crossmr but that's not evidence of sockpuppetry. One of the diffs which was not highlighted, but which I think should have been, is Keegscee's statement that he uses proxies to harass "not good faith editors", although he later implied that he might have been joking and questioned whether he should be banned for making a silly statement. I guess the question is whether he was joking or not, and the main way to answer that is to look for evidence that he has been harassing people under proxies. Which I guess is what the SPI investigations are about? Anyway, I'm leaning towards supporting the ban, but I wish it had been set up in a way that made it easy to understand. Looking back at the contributions, even though the SPI case and userpages don't clearly connect them to Keegscee, it seems clear that they are from Keegscee based on the contributions. I maintain that all ban discussions should attempt to start with both an accusing case and a defense if possible. Second update: Switched to oppose neutral. There is too much odd evidence flying around - the confirmed socks are all extremely obvious and I've yet to see clear confirmation that these are connected to Keegscee's IP. That in combination with a SPI report opened by an indef-blocked user suggests that someone could be trying to set Keegscee up. Keegscee's defense is below as Amusedchap, but has been blocked as a sockpuppet erroneously. I think the indef-block should have been lifted for the community ban discussion. Third update: The previous statement still holds - the evidence here was incredibly confusing and ultimately it comes down to Keegscee probably making a few random edits under open proxies and some bad but at the same time run-of-the-mill bad faith and snarky comments. Can't see why more than a year is necessary really, but I won't hold up the crowd. I also cannot understand why one would block a user from even commenting on their own talk page prior to bringing up a ban discussion unless the user is given to spewing obscenities over and over or something. II | (t - c) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC was listed as a source of the Arbcom case and is clearly involved in the various AN / ANI prior discussions; I'm not sure how much more explicitly that should be disclosed?

Keegscee was notified [59] promptly after initiating the discussion. I'm going to add to that notification an email link to the Arbcom ban appeals subcommittee, as I now see on rechecking that his account is currently blocked from posting to its talk page or sending emails; if BASC gets any comments he wants posted to the discussion they can forward them here.

The sockpuppet category was created some weeks after Keegscee was banned; his being credited with being the root account is not terribly controversial but could be incorrect.

Keegscee went back and forth a bit claiming he was joking, but seemed to settle on a stance that he had not been joking but that we could not "prove it" therefore he should be let off without sanctions. We don't have perfect proof tying this all together; IMHO this meets our usual standards for evidence to make a reasonable conclusion and act on it, but that's up for discussion.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion involves not only notification, but also waiting a basic amount of time to see if the accused editor wants to submit a response concurrently. By the time Keegscee notices the notification and submits a defense, there could be 10 supports. It's entirely likely and I don't think it makes sense for that to happen. As far as PCHS-NJROTC's involvement, yes, it is clear that's he's involved but I would prefer not to look at involvement as a binary yes/no, in the same way we don't look at AfD as Keep/Delete. That's a first step, but I would prefer that PCHS-NJROTC offer a brief summary of the issues leading up to the dispute and if possible the length of time they've been interacting. If PCHS-NJROTC thinks this is too much information or invades his privacy, then he should also say that to make it abundantly clear to everyone that he's not giving the full story. There's a narrative here which isn't being told - it appears that PCHS-NJROTC is angry at Keegscee partly because of PCHS-NJROTC has a close relationship to Conservapedia and Keegscee doesn't like it or something. Getting this information out is relevant in the long-term because banning can be used as a wikilawyering tactic to avoid NPOV when a content editor has a position that the initiating editor does not agree with, and it also allows aids in mediating the dispute if there is no consensus for the ban. II | (t - c) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that your assumption that PCHS-NJROTC is angry at Keegscee partly because of PCHS-NJROTC has a close relationship to Conservapedia and Keegscee doesn't like it or something is wrong. I didn't even know what Conservapedia was until seeing Keegscee's comment about it, and when I first raised an AN/I about his attacking of it, it could have been like RationalWiki for all knew; it could have been a liberal site made to debunk conservatism and I'd have still disapproved of Keegscee's attacks on it. It is because of Keegscee that I joined Conservapedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would have explained how all this started upfront I wouldn't have had to make a guess like that. I still don't know the timeline or how it started. But snarky comments like the ones made by Keegscee are very common in the medicine and politics area where I usually edit, and Conservapedia editors can expect a rough go. Although I'm very liberal and rational I have as much disdain for Rationalwiki as anyone - but the fact is that Wikipedia parallels Rationalwiki a lot more than it parallels Conservapedia, and if we banned everyone who expressed their disdain for conservatives beliefs in a snarky or stupid way we'd be casting a pretty wide net (e.g., a below supporter of the Keegscee's ban considers all edits against abortion "vandalism" and reverts them as such). II | (t - c) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Support community ban. User has commented that he is only here to disrupt. As per other comments, subject to the usual appeals process should he reform himself and desire to return. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy break

• Already de facto banned, why are we doing this? Is it just me, or are there more and more ban discussions lately about people who are already indef blocked for socking, vandalism, harassment, etc.? These discussions seem to me to be a waste of perfectly good electrons; per another discussion somewhere around here, now we have to talk about this for a "bare minimum" of 24 hours. For someone who is already indef blocked. I hope people will consider limiting these discussions only to cases where it will do more than negligible good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There is some slight difference in how we handle socks of indef blocked sockpuppeteers versus banned ones. Also, the message sent is potentially of useful import - that this was not just some administrator doing it, but a community consensus. Some indefinitely blocked users have weaseled around claiming a particular admin was out to get them and that there was no reasonable review. This goes on record against that. It also reduces the chance that some lone admin without enough history awareness or checks may mistakenly unblock them at some point in the future. I understand not wanting to community ban everyone we have indef blocked; I think we're acknowledging and making use of a shift in community expectations and standards. Figuring out where that settles out is worthwhile. Perhaps this is a step too far, but it's not obviously wrong to consider IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The difference in how we handle socks is, indeed, fairly slight, and I'm pretty sure when someone gets to this level of disruption, they could not care less whether the're indef blocked or banned. Or, if anything, they might feel freer to hold nothing back now. If some lone admin unblocks in future, then we can have the ban discussion; if not, then we've saved a discussion and all the bureaucracy it entails. I'm not saying ban discussions are always a waste of time; I'm saying a ban discussion of a currently indef blocked abusive sockpuppeteer probably is. The only real benefit I can see is the feeling of camaraderie we create in saying bad things about a "community enemy", like a Two Minutes Hate, but that doesn't seem like a good thing to foster. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. Would it be useful to expand on this in the general discussion above about ban discussions? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• As an ordinary editor dealing with sock puppetry, a community ban is easier. A community ban gives editors a clear mandate to revert on sight. An indef block means we need to worry about being seen as edit-warring. Your 1984-point is well made; they may well care less, we should care more, but editors - we should care about them/us too. TFOWR^propaganda 23:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse He's all but announced the rules don't apply to him. Sorry, they do. Blueboy96 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• I do not support the ban. There was a discussion of a ban months ago and it was dismissed. What has changed? Checkuser has not confirmed any socks and it seems like we're just wasting our time here. If Keegscee is watching this, he is probably delighted at the attention he is getting. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangmike (talk • contribs)
  • The above is NOT Orangemike. The edit was made from this account and needs to be blocked immediately. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Struck the impersonation account of Orangemike's comments (who has been blocked) as they shouldn't be allowed. Anyone who disagrees, please feel to revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I've discussed this with a Checkuser and he tells me that Orangmike = a PCHS-NJROTC impersonator. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Wonder who is next....the plot thickens, kinda like one of them old timey radio shows. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - From what I'm seeing and from what I'm hearing from User:J.delanoy in private, Orangmike and PHCS-NJROTC are both Keegscee socks. Enough is enough. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - After dealing with the Orangmike sock and then reading through the proposal, I definitely support banhammering this Keegscee guy. Could someone ask J.delanoy if a range block on Keegscee's range can be done to lessen these socks for awhile? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No-go on the rangeblock. Quoth he, Sprint "doesn't have anything smaller than a /13". —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Damn. Cell phones, tricky. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I hate to so quickly jump in here abut abuse reporting, but if he makes IP hopping a habit, then an alternative to a range block could be WP:ABUSE. The other volunteers there could handle it if and when it meets the minimum criteria for an abuse report. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that is a good idea. Can't stop it on our own, go to the source. We shouldn't hold our breathe as some providers just don't care what goes on on their networks, but some do (it is rare). I say put in a WP:ABUSE report and link it here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
          • • They would care if they heard that a rangeblock had been considered. Most don't care on the first complaint; it's when they get at least three that they start caring, so I wouldn't say it's *rare* for them to care, especially since we're talking about Sprint, which is what Embarq used to be part of. PCHS-NJROTC^(Messages) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Ok, this thread has gotten out of control. First of all, User:Jéské Couriano, your super secret discussions with a checkuser have no place here. Until an actual checkuser verifies what you have said, it is pure speculation and should have no bearing in a ban discussion. I happen to know for a fact that there is absolutely NO IP link between Keegscee and the Orangemike impersonator (because I am Keegscee, obviously). Unless someone hacked into my secured network and created an account (which did not happen), then there is no IP link and a checkuser can and should confirm this. And with regards to the Sprint abuse report, go for it. Not even I'm stupid enough to make disruptive edits from my phone. In fact, I've only made about 10 edits total from my phone since it caps me at 300 characters. Plus, my contract is up on June 22 and if I don't decide to get the HTC EVO 4G, I'll be switching to Verizon!
              • Also, as some people have echoed above, I'm not sure what good a ban would do. How would it stop me from editing? Who enforces it? What are the consequences? I'm not posing these questions to mock a seemingly unenforceable policy; I'm actually interested in knowing the answers.
              • Finally, I noticed that at AN/I, User:GeorgeWilliamHerbert took unilateral action and indefinitely blocked User:Angie Y. The reason I bring this up is that this is the same "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that he used with me. Instead of politely asking me to explain my user page (which was the reason for my block), he decided to block me indefinitely and then make me appeal my case. Being that I was a user in good standing with over 2000 edits, I believe I should have been offered that consideration. By imposing the harshest penalty from the beginning, he is both making it more difficult for users (because a lot of admins don't have the backbone to overturn another admin's blocks) and, even if the block is removed, it will most likely sour the user to Wikipedia. There is much less collateral damage when you assume good faith and are wrong than when you assume bad faith and are wrong. End vent. Amusedchap (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                • DUCK alert. Sock has been reported to AIV. Let's get that rangeblock set. Sprint can deal with the fallout. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Haha. I admitted to being Keegscee! No need to claim DUCK here. I just needed to vent and since I'm not banned yet and I'm not being disruptive, I thought it was okay. Amusedchap (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                    • No, it wasn't disruptive, just really really stupid. You walked into the hornet's nest again (after doing so time and time before) and for what? To get blocked again? To tell us you might go to Verizon? Thanks for the clues and where to look. You get indef blocked (again), another autoblock and a potential range block....yeah, keep digging that hole for yourself. Wow, trolls are dumb. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                      • It's just so easy when you keep feeding me! Om nom nom. But seriously, you can range block the IP I'm editing from. I don't care. It's a proxy. If anything, I'm doing WP a favor so that real troublemakers can't use it. :) Amusedchap (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                        • This is the IP that I am editing from. So now you know. :) I'm not trying to keep any secrets, NeutralHomer. 209.236.112.224 (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                          • Funny troll is funny. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                            • Just FYI: this is indeed his IP and I have blocked 209.236.112.0/20 as an Open Proxy as a result. -- Luk ^talk 10:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                              • Thanks kindly, Luk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've taken a look and came to my own conclusion that this user is repeatedly engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry. (Checkuser is not an exclusive means of picking up socking. I don't think the imperfectly informed concerns about process wonkery, substantive issues or previous statements are helping. That said, J.delanoy seems to have resolved some of those concerns.) When an user exhausts the community's patience with this sort of behavior, it seems logical that the community deal with it per this usual route. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• We already know that a one-sided story doesn't work in articlespace. That's why we have WP:NPOV. I don't see why it is controversial to insist upon a similar stance in this case, or why we should make it easy for the accusers stand as the judge and jury. And it's not like I don't think we should clean house either. I'm fine with supporting bans if they're presented fairly and I think the fair process doesn't involve much more work but rather just a slightly different approach. If there's a fair process it makes it more difficult to appeal and avoids future drama. In fact, I would probably support a 1-year ban on an above voter, Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), for continued rampant edit-warring, bad faith, marking non-vandalism as vandalism, and a refusal to admit the issues (see User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#Re:_My_.22Unreasonableness.22 for further details). II | (t - c) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• II, this isn't about me, move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think this sock is based on me. I've been called "Keegsie" on IRC many times, and it is known that I use Sprint Mobile Broadband. Whoever owns this account, if I know you, email me please. I'm not exactly pissed off, but this is just immature. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Can someone share here -- in summary or detail -- what is this material J.delanoy has furnished to at least two people in this discussion? Two different people have alluded to her/his findings, & those of us who aren't "in the loop" deserve to see this information. (I'd like to add my vote as an uninvolved & hopefully objective party, but knowing that I haven't heard the entire story makes me reluctant to do so.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not comment on this earlier. I was not aware that this was being discussed with regard to banning someone.

Basically, here's the info:

 Confirmed Orangmike (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

• PHCS-NJROTC (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Strumminbanjo (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Keegscee2 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The thing that likes it up the but (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Those last two were actually created after I talked to Jeremy a few days ago. I went ahead and blocked the IP, and if somepne wants to block the accounts that aren't already, you can, because they are without a doubt being controlled by the same person as the others. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I must have been looking at the wrong whois before, because a rangeblock here would likely be feasible. At this point, though, it's not really necessary. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a checkuser, just filling in a blank. User:Luk, who IS a checkuser has confirmed that User:Amusedchap and the 209.236.112.0/20 range (an open proxy) are Keegscee as well. Also, they are admitted above too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• J.delanoy, could you confirm that, in addition to those socks being from one IP, they are also consistent with Keegscee (talk · contribs)'s IP? Keegscee says above (as Amusedchap) "I happen to know for a fact that there is absolutely NO IP link between Keegscee and the Orangemike impersonator (because I am Keegscee, obviously)". It is incongruous for him to make a stupid, highly incriminating comment as Orangmike (no content contribus) or PHCS-NJROTC (an obvious impersonation) and then to show up later to make a rational and reasonable argument while openly admitting to being Keegscee (as Amusedchap). Further, the latest SPI case was opened by an indef-blocked user. It seems plausible that someone is impersonating Keegscee to get him into trouble. The other confirmed socks have a similar trend of zooming to project space without doing any content work, which is a very stupid way to operate a sockpuppet deceptively. I should point out that Amusedchap (talk · contribs) was not a sockpuppet. The account stated upfront that it was Keegscee under a new account. WP:SOCK clearly notes that a sockpuppet is the use of a "alternate accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus". II | (t - c) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keegscee indicated that he abuses open proxies, that is the reason for his block. Recently, he used an open proxy, and quite plausibly to avoid being reported for abuse as was being discussed as a possiblity. The contributions of a particular webhost IP[60] seems to support Keegscee's claim that he's abused open proxies (notice the one edit summary This user is just out to get me. He is out to get a lot of people. and his comment User:PCHS-NJROTC has been out to get me ever since I first politely contacted... at [61]), but as Keegscee said, checkuser could probably not prove it. However, the IP is checkuser blocked for something. Although I see your point about his alternate accounts being used to make his voice heard here, making these accounts is not the right way; there are more appropriate channels of contesting a ban (such as ban appeals through ArbCom, which was brought to his attention), and impersonating other users is never acceptable under any circumstances. I am also strongly opposed to any sort of lift on his indefinate block for reasons you will have to get from User:MGodwin or the WP:ArbCom. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't seen that open proxy abuse evidence yet - pardon me for being dense, though, but I don't see any reverting of your edits by that IP? is it related to another IP that did the reverting, and could you show it? Also, do you have any other stalkers? I think you might have missed one of my main points - Keegscee is apparently interested in defending his reputation. The creation of obvious impersonation accounts (PHCS-NJROTC and Orangmike) to do obvious trolling, at his own community ban discussion, is not consistent with his defense. It suggests that these were created by someone else to make Keegscee look bad. Some of the other confirmed sockpuppets have similar editing patterns - just too obvious to be legitimate. That's why confirmation that these accounts have Keegscee's IP would be nice. I can see a ban on the basis of evidence of abusing open proxies (a form of sockpuppetry which Keegscee basically admitted to), but these alleged and suspicious sockpuppets which zoom to Wikipediaspace are too odd without IP confirmation. II | (t - c) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So, someone creates two accounts, on the same IP address as Keegscee, but it isn't Keegscee. Plus they were checkuser confirmed. How do you explain AmusedChap where he is admits he is Keegscee (also checkuser confirmed)? One could say with your strong defense of him that you are Keegscee. Should you draw up an SPI for you as well? Cause my duck-o-meter is going nuts at the moment either than or like you said yourself, you are just dense. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

II, this isn't just about those impersonation accounts; this is about Keegscee's immaturity. For example, this DOES look like it really is Keegscee because it not only claims to be Keegscee, but it also uses Sprint Nextel, which is what checkuser once confirmed to be a service provider used by Keegscee. Furthermore, if people are going to be too stubborn to take my word for it on the email issue, then perhaps I was right in originally taking it to ArbCom, who can see that I am right on that one. One last thing: lets play a little devil's advocate. It's important, NH, that we always WP:AGF and not assume that anyone who merely takes Keegscee's side in this is a sock of Keegscee; WP:ABF can actually work against the movement here, though your input here is greatly appreciated, NH. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Both Keegscee and Orangmike et al. (the impersonation accounts) are using open proxies, but not the same one. However, in light of other technical evidence, they are  Confirmed, without question, as being the same person. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When you say technical evidence, do you really mean technical evidence such as location from Checkuser? If so, why not just say so upfront rather than leave it vague? II | (t - c) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I will not, under any circumstances, give information that is likely lead to the positive identification of a user's real-world identity against their will unless I have utterly no choice. If you do not think that my opinion on the matter is correct, you are free to ask another checkuser for their opinion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support community ban; persistent socking, an outright ban will clarify, hopefully with little DRAMA. As suggested by Carcharoth, I will "Keep things boringly calm and simple", and say no more.  Chzz  ►  05:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment anyone thinking about opposing should have seen some of the emails he was sending, which is why his access to the email feature was revoked. Those messages were paradigms of blatant harassment. Of course, I won't be providing any copies due to privacy concerns, without an okay from the WP:ArbCom or the foundation. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Traditionally offwiki evidence is not considered onwiki; although I think it could make sense to do so, I certainly don't think vague allusions should be given much consideration - you could strike out the private parts and provide the rest. Not that it's necessary at this point. II | (t - c) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it's on-wiki in a way, yet off-wiki because it's not publically viewable; he sent it through the Wikipedia email system, and the comments are directly related to Wikipedia. I'm not convinced to post the content on Wikipedia because of policy (it's not about names or anything of the like, it's just something we don't do), but if you're eager to see it, I can send you a copy privately. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support The first few links have spoken. OpenTheWindows, sir! 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• This still hasn't been closed? Just thought I'd add that it's pretty much confirmable that the accounts claiming to be Keegscee were indeed him, and Keegscee seems to have acknowledged (at his RationalWiki talkpage) that his behavior since then (his block) has probably been worthy of a ban. [62] PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral Support.. Clearly harassing many users.. won't be tolerated. —Tommy2010 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I went ahead and sent a copy of one of those taunting emails sent by Keegscee to Tommy2010, as it contains no personal information (except my own last name and first initial). As to that conversation at RW, it's just a paradigm of Keegscee and his buddies using politics as an excuse. I was not a Conservapedian when I first saw Keegscee's behavior as dismally immature. That came about because of Keegscee. This has nothing to do with politics, but of course they'll use it as an excuse. Furthermore, they basically say it's Grawp that should be banned, and they're right on that one, as he is. But Grawp is not the only one deserving of a ban. Defacto bans could probably be generally okay for people like Grawp, Mmbabies, LBHS Cheerleader, and etc because their abuse is obvious. Keegscee is more of a sneaky character (he apparently models himself after Dexter Morgan), so a ban would be more useful in his case. Bans are not just about those "deserving" of it, but rather those where it can be useful. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on my user page. —Tommy2010 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What has not been mentioned here is that the vast majority of Keegscee's edits, along with the associated socks, have been directly related to PCHS-NJROTC, and his long, long, term behavior of relentless going after people through venues such as this and WP:ABUSE. When PCHS feels offended, he has no problems going to great lengths to get back at the offender. Without PCHS, no disruption would of ever occurred. Nearly all of the "vandal" edits have been only disruptive to PCHS, not to the project. Contacting ISP's over behavior which he has instigated is utterly ridiculous. He has mentioned that he has contacted my ISP as well. As a community would should not be supporting him in actions that could have actual ramifications. If he wants to play games and others want to play with him, great, but the community should not support his actions. But I digress, this thread is not about his behavior. Before PCHS started this thread, Keegscee had not edited in quite some time. The fact that this thread was created after ONE edit by him shows that PCHS was seeking punishment for perceived wrongs against himself. Looking at Keegscee's edit history, it is easy to tell that he was a good contributor, and after a frustrating encounter with PCHS, decided to give up on Wikipedia. Beach drifter (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin for closure?

This discussion seems to have reached an end point IMHO, but we need an uninvolved admin to close. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Appeal by TheDarkLordSeth

Appeal unsuccessful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user TheDarkLordSeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Tobic ban from the subject of " Armenian Genocide" article. [63] Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Tim Song (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notification of that editor [64] Statement by TheDarkLordSeth Please bear with me for a while and read it all. I will start from the beginning and explain everything to be thorough. On 6th of April, I made one edit concerning two sections of the article I'm banned from. Both were mostly based on two BBC links. (1st one: [65], 2nd one: [66]) The first part of my edit was about the the notion that the accuracy and factuality of the article being a dispute due to unequivocal opinion of historians. The second part of the edit was to simply fix a what I thought to be a typo which turned out to be a deliberate act of misuse of sources(On the link it writes "Armenia says" but it's used to indicate that "Western scholars say" just because the link is from a Western source here: [67]). I wanted to show the nature of my edit to show that it's not disruptive. This edit was reverted in matter of hours with no discussion. I reverted the revert asking for involvement in the discussion page before reverting. Nonetheless the edit was reverted multiple times with no involvement in the discussion page or simply calling the edit denialist propaganda. I saw this as violation and did not think it falls under the 1RR rule imposed on the article. I stopped after 9 reverts to wait for the outcome as another member who reverted my edits 3 times appealed for sanctions against me. I got warned by PhilKnight after an hour: [68]. As a result of the appeal I and CheesyBiscuit got blocked for 31 hours due to violation of the revert rule. For some reason 4 days after the block decision I got banned from topic indefinitely: [69]. Apparently the reason was that I am showing disruptive behavior continuously even though I hardly edit. In the meantime a completely uninvolved member who became involved in the current situation posted a discussion on the talk page concerning the possible differences between the same topic in different languages: [70]. I pointed out that due to nationality of the majority of members editing a certain language version the article may differ and that due to the English version being controlled by Armenian members the content and the POV differs from that of the versions from other languages such as Turkish one. My use of my observation concerning the nationalities of the members who are editing and reverting started from there. I got warned for it and stopped making such remarks after this: [71]. I appealed this before([72]) only to be ignored by the same admins that the discussion was already covered before. The 31 hour block was covered but the indefinite ban was not nor any explanation why I was banned. I'm gonna also ignore the fact that I was harassed by one of the deciding admins just to show AGF. I'm not asking for a second chance. I'm asking for what's right. I was to abandon Wiki for good but the fact that there are way too factual errors spurring from nationalistic agendas of many members in Wiki and an admin change my mind to follow this issue further. Any of you can check my history and see that I rarely edit and none of them are major or disruptive. You can also see that I almost always try to engage in a discussion in the talk pages before making any edits and try to be as civil as possible. I always assume faith but as you can also read from WP:AGF that there is a limit to that. It tells you to assume good faith as long as there is no evidence contrary and that's what I've been doing from the start. I find the topic ban completely baseless and being punished twice for the same violation as absurd. You may not like my ideas or my findings but as long as I back them with impartial sources you at least have to respect them and act neutrally. I can only expect that. Now, if you think that it's appropriate to ban me from this topic I need you to explain to me how I fit the banning policy: "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute." [73]. To some it up, I'm being banned from a topic where I only had very few edits with the accusation of continuous disruptive behavior which was reverting a revert when I was already blocked for 31 hours for the violation of the 1RR rule. I apologize for the long thread. I was directed here by the page descriptions for ban discussions and I was also advised to use the sanction appeal template. I also want to point out that I'm not fishing for admins but thought that I can get more admin opinions here rather than avoiding the old ones. This will be ultimately my last attempt to see this issue solved and will determine my existence in Wiki as an editor. Thank you for your time. I would like to warn anyone who reads Marshall's comment below. You can simply check my comments on cases he's referring to and see that he's wrong about his accusations. A simple check would show you that his accusations are unfounded. I don't really need to say more about them. Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Marshal Bagramyan I have already warned people to simply check what you say about me as there are many discrepancies in your claims. I already mentioned the use of peoples nationality above, explaining how I stopped after being warned by an admin about it with the exception of the quote Ionidasz posted and apologized for it below. You are an editor who uses references inaccurately deliberately to support your own point of view. Even in your post below it is rather obvious that your agenda is to silence me not to have any edit that goes against your belief on that article which you have some kind of monopoly. You reverted my edit with no discussion. I may have been involved in edit warring and that my 9 reverts were a violation of Wikipedia policies but you clearly started the edit warring. I simply cannot assume any good faith about you as the Wikipedia policy states that I don't need to AGF if there are evidence to the contrary of good faith. You're in constant battle stance in that article calling anything that doesn't suit you denialist propaganda and reverting as fast as possible. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) PhilKnight I am referring to my edits other than the one I'm banned for. There is no contradiction in those two quotes. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Kansas Bear Well, I'm sorry for wanting to edit on a single topic. I haven't seen any other article with the amount of accuracies that the "Armenian Genocide" article has. The evidence is quite clear that I'm not here to battle other editors but that's all I've faced for now. If I am to be just prosecuted just because of my the points I try to bring to those articles then I expect everyone to be honest about it. I can't really take in all the insults and attacks I've faced so far. My behavior can be described as confrontational at most. I was also not aware that I was not allowed to express my opinion on an appeal about an other person. Does that only apply to me? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Aregakn It's rather not logical for you to accuse me of treating Wikipedia as a battleground when you've been on a crusade to get me blocked from Wiki for good. 1) First of all your first edit is not the one in the link you just gave. It's this: [74]. You put a banner and pointed out that the talk page is not a forum discussion page to discuss the events but then continued to discuss about the events. So I asked you a genuine question if you couldn't understand what you were saying. 2) You make it rather obvious by this comment showing that you're against me just because of the points I'm bringing. Calling me a denial is an insult; one that you've been using against me at every chance and dismissing any of the points I bring to the article by calling it denialist propaganda. If the article is deliberately following a single POV while ignoring a lot of information and historian to support that POV it is indeed a propaganda tool. I don't really have any other word in a dictionary that I can use. 3) Your 3rd point is already covered in my long statement above. Even though my use of nationalities of involved members was born from my reply to a member being interested about differences in different language versions of the same article, I stopped using it completely once I was warned by PhilKnight. To me the fact that a very controversial article is being heavily edited by mostly members of a certain nationality is important but being warned by an admin was enough to not pursue such an argument. Once again, Aregakn, you're insulting me. You've clearly shown that you're after me just because of the points I'm bringing which are completely backed by impartial and reliable sources. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Aregakn You contradicted yourself in your statement and I simply pointed that out. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Sardur Nowhere in Wiki it says that users have to agree with the rules. You only need to comply with and respect them. Nowhere in Wiki it says that a user may be punished for the same violation twice. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) "Wiki"? ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I apologize for my mistake. Wikipedia it is. :) TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Would you care to comment on my case though? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) No apology needed, I cited that page for humour only (though I will admit it is a pet-hate of mine - Ward Cunningham being something of a hero of mine... Back on topic, not really, to be honest - I only know what I've read here. My personal view is that editors who edit in a very narrow range of topics tend to be detrimental to the project, and that it should be no great hardship being topic banned - since there's a huge amount of other stuff in Wikipedia to edit. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I get your point but when as someone researching on the subject I find myself involved in lots of discussions concerning this topic. Most of the times those people show me a passage from Wikipedia or a picture from that topic and try to use it as a proof. Then I check the section they refer to and see how sometimes references are misused or even the people in the pictures are not Turks or the source is really questionable. Moreover I hardly edit. Even on that certain article I don't even have more than roughly 10 edits(To be clear I reverted 9 times a revert as one of my edits was reverted) and all of them have been minor ones. You can simply check those edits and see that all of them were minor ones and had the purpose of making the article more accurate sometimes even just fixing how a reference is used. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Sardur 9 out of that 14 edits you mention are reverts from a single case where my 5th edit was reverted. Then I reverted the revert as no reason other "denialist claim" was given. This went on 9 times. So in reality I only edited this article 5 times. The reason for adding the word "claim" to the introduction was to make the article more accurate as most Ottoman historians argue something different than the current article claims and even the BBC page for the issue has the title "Armenian Genocide dispute" as the factuality is still a major subject of dispute. So you can see that my edits were few and minor. Only the last one may be closer to "major" edit but in no way it changes the article majorly. I did not try to delete a full section or try to pull the article towards a certain POV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Sardur I'm not asking for a second chance but thorough examination and judgment of my case that I am punished for twice. I have only one edit since the ban because everything that would be more sensible for me to edit on are covered by the topic. To me If my actions can be unjustly prosecuted with no real grounds then there is no reason I can't face the same thing in other fields. My acts in no way falls under the description of when a user should be banned. My block for 31 hours is but the ban is in no way is. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Sardur I and CheesyBiscuit got blocked for 31 hours for violating the 1RR rule. According to your logic, the ban is in itself is unjust. How can a Arbitration Request have two verdicts for the same violation? Who in Wikipedia get punished for the same violation twice? I was given enough explanation for the 31 hour block and it was just as it was under the Wikipedia rules but the ban is in no way under any Wikipedia rule. At first I protested against the block as I thought reverting a revert was not defined as a revert and I was unaware of certain Wikipedia rules. But, the verdict to ban me requires a certain ground. Am I continuously disruptive? This is quite impossible as I hardly edit. I have a single edit that can be labeled as controversial and even that is backed by a neutral Western source that Wikipedia especially relies on and many others. Due to this very simple fact alone there is no ground for a topic ban. If it's a case that an admin is free to issue such a punishment just because he wants to then be honest and say that then I'll be done with Wikipedia for good. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Ionidasz Can you please provide the diffs of my POV editings. Every single one of my edits are all to eliminate POV. I would like to ask you to provide these diffs in detail with your arguments showing why they're POV. Unless you do that the accusation simply sticks and guilty or not I am viewed as guilty. For your reference to AGK, there is something you need to understand. On that talk page anything I say but anything is replied as denialist propaganda. My every single act is called as a POV to make the article changed into a Turkish propaganda tool and deleted or my posts on the discussion page was even threatened to be deleted. But everything. Even when I changed what the Turkish government claims happened with respect to a page from Turkish Foreign Minister website and Marshal Bagrayman was the first to respond saying that the number did not matter. He also reverted my second edit that I mentioned in my statement above which was purely an edit to fix a mistake made with the reference. The mistake is still there in the article. It says "per Western sources" when in fact the BBC article that is referenced is saying "The Armenians claim..". Though I do need to apologize for the specific post you quoted. Apparently it's the only time I mentioned peoples nationality after I was warned. I have no reason to deny or cover that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Ionidasz One thing I forgot is that this is a topic ban which pretty much means that I can't edit any article about anything from Turkey, Armenia or WWI or any country or individual that is involved in this issue. That's pretty much half of the world. I am an individual who became interested in this subject and have been researching on it and collecting sources who are completely non-Turkish and non-Armenian. The reason I wanted to edit on this article is because I feel most confident about my sources concerning this article. I always use a definitive source to back up the edits if they're introducing new information. For the Turkish state claim edit concerning the issue I used Turkish Foreign Minister website. For the edit that put the claim word I used the BBC summary page concerning the issue which has a title "Armenian Genocide dispute" and the existence of equivocal voice from Ottoman(non-Turkish people who have an expertise on Ottoman history) historians. For the edit where I changed the sentence from "per Western sources" to "per Armenian sources" I looked at the reference already used for this statement which was a BBC article saying "Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Ionidasz As you seem to have a strong opinion on this issue concerning me I'd like to request from you an explanation of why the ban and the block is justified and how these falls under the definition of a topic ban. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Ionidasz For your statement on the me involving edit warring to be true I need to have a lot more edit on that article. The fact that I have a lot more involvement in the talk page clearly shows that I intent was to avoid edit warring. If I was really involved in edit warring I wouldn't try to discuss anything length. My very first involvement in the talk page have been responded with calls against my alleged Turkish and denialist propaganda. It was quite clear to me that certain members had already established a monopoly on that article and attack anyone who raises issues that undermine their POV. My behavior can be at most defined as sarcastic and confrontational which is a product of the apparent non neutral point of view approach of certain members. You can check my talk page to see that I've never received a warning on such an issue. Even then you can clearly see in my action to open a discussion on the talk page before making substantial edits to ensure an edit is discussed involving reliable sources and ideas. All I faced was personal agendas of certain members to not allow any idea or source that doesn't suit their personal view from the article. Nonetheless, a ban requires the punished user to involve in continuous disruptive behavior. It can be clearly seen that I never continue a type of behavior that I'm warned about with the exception of that single incident that you quoted and which I apologized above. My limited contribution is due to monopoly of certain members on the article and my previous appeal was not reevaluated. You can clearly see that reevaluation was denied to me in my previous appeal. I cannot back up from my stance that the topic ban is issued under no grounds. That stance still holds as no evidence is provided showing a disruptive editing of mine. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Ionidasz My responsibility is to comply with the Wikipedia rules and be productive for the articles. If I'm prosecuted under different grounds, ones that fail to be true, accurate or relevant, there is no responsibility to feel. The very fact that I do not continue a behavior that I'm justly prosecuted or warned about is proof enough to show that what you accuse me of doing is wrong. I tried to ignore that article for some time not to be pulled into the edit warring that has been going on for years by certain members. I changed my mind after receiving many messages on how many individual inaccuracies and non-facts exist in the article. Maybe you may really don't like to discuss the issue with me due to my sarcastic and confrontational tone as I already mentioned above. That's all the responsibility I can assume. Even then I try to be completely polite and AGF but as the policy of AGF suggests I can't AGF forever when there is clear evidence to the contrary. When I fail to AGF that is clearly seen from my comments. These are same people that accuse me of insulting them when I don't and when they so freely insult me calling me a "denialist". For me to ask for a second chance I need to accept that the first verdict was true when it's clearly not. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Statement by Tim Song I don't see anything here that does not duplicate what was already said in the last appeal, which already duplicated what was said in the original AE thread that led to the topic ban. I'm not convinced that the user will be a net positive if the topic ban is lifted, therefore I must decline the appeal insofar it is directed to me, and recommend the community to decline the appeal as well. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth Comment by Marshal Bagramyan I feel compelled to voice my opposition to lifting TheDarkLordSeth's ban. It is not just the technicality of the revert war that landed TheDarkLordSeth in hot water but the entire battleground mentality that he brings with him. For one, what he has conveniently omitted from his narrative are his comments on the Armenian Genocide talk page prior to the beginning of the edit war. A simple look through its talk page will demonstrate how he did not spare a single opportunity to sow doubt regarding the genocide's veracity and actively and aggressively tried to insert information which was not supported by any reliable sources. Judging by his comments, his interests in the Armenian Genocide-related articles stemmed from no genuine desire to improve upon the sources used or the information present, but to drive home a point of view which is not supported by an serious academics. His edits are, unfortunately, symptomatic of the Republic of Turkey's attempts to quash, obfuscate, or distort any mention of the genocide, a cursory glance through the Denial of the Armenian Genocide demonstrates this adequately. If his ban were to be lifted, I don't think that he would be any more amenable to changing his views to reflect scholarly consensus but would be comparable to privileging a Holocaust denialist the opportunity to present the Holocaust as something which still remains in doubt. Why else did TheDarkLordSeth revert other established users 9 times in a single day? All because of the fact that he wanted the reader to distinguish Armenian scholars from Western ones? No, as demonstrated in his reverts, he went on to insert the words "claim of" in the lead paragraph to present the Armenian Genocide as nothing but an allegation. He did this 9 times over (e.g., [75], [76], [77], etc.) without so much as any even initiating a discussion on the words' insertion, however untenable they may be. In addition to the above outlined problems, his behavior has shown little to no signs of improvement. While he has been less inclined to accuse the administrators of supporting this or that side, he still is treating Wikipedia is as a nationalistic battleground. This was best seen during a discussion on his talk page with a fellow editor to delete a POV-related article. The advice he imparted was, once again, aggressive and combative, essentially telling him to game the system, for example, "May I also advise renaming of the "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" to "Prosecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" ? It would show a lot of good faith by you and would make all the opposition shut up.", despite the fact that that article had a long range of problems, one which the "opposition" had no trouble in enumerating. An even more egregious example of this combative mood was seen in his comments during an Arbitration Enforcement complaint filed against me (which was subsequently dismissed as being frivolous; see here for the full case). After an administrator named Stifle dismissed the flimsy case against me, TheDarklordSeth placed his own comments, agitating that some sort of retribution be carried out against me. Observe the wording and how he essentially accuses me of vandalism: "Stifle, I beg you to reconsider your verdict...The reason I'm posting here is not just to defend the article but to point out the non-neutral act by Marshall bordering vandalism...Marshall merged it because it was against his POV and that is vandalism..." After I commented on the rudeness of such agitation and told him that the case had already been dismissed, he stated the following and continued on with the agitation to have me banned or blocked. He was repudiated by other editors for so inserting his views in such a manner but his participation was deemed a non-violation of his topic ban. After digesting all this information (I do not have the time to go through ever problematic remark he has made thus far), how, one thinks, can a responsible editor be asked to put up with such irresponsible editing? The warfare-like atmosphere is certainly not appropriate for the healthy discussion of how to improve an article and this mentality of negationism, opportunism, and deep-seated enmity against other ethnic groups (Armenians, Greeks, etc.) clearly illustrates how TheDarkLordSeth's promises to improve himself ring hollow. The history of his contributions on the Armenian Genocide article has been one endless crusade rant against the perfidious nature of the Armenians, Greeks and other perceived enemies of Turkey. Would Wikipedia ever indulge a Holocaust denier and accord him the right to vent his views and present them as legitimate positions in the scholarly world? I don't see any benefits in lifting his ban and I fear that were he to be allowed to edit the same articles, the troubles will once more be resurrected. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) To AGK's: we have amply demonstrated the reasons for our opposition to lifting the ban and all of us have expressed misgivings to lifting it on reasons other than the nine-reverts-in-one-day debacle. My long comment above and Aregakn's below have demonstrated quite well the type of vitriolic attitude that TheDarkLordSeth brings with him: hurling out insults against editors or accusing them of being this or that nationality, just for taking a position which does not conform to his. "I understand your attempt to smudge truth as you're an Armenian..." [78] "... the Armenians will continue to use propaganda tools of WWI..." [79], "I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do..." etc. I mean, really, this is the kind of editor we want to be working with, especially on such hot button issues as the Armenian Genocide? His rabid agitation to have an administrator impose some sort of punishment against me was perhaps one of the ugliest incidents I have encountered on Wikipedia ever since I began editing here. He was multiple chances to modify his behavior and the revert war that he initiated was simply its culmination. No one here is convinced that his return will bring forth any positive contribution. To the contrary, it seems that he will revert back to his same ways and we will most probably see more disruption and more attempts by him to vilify others, obfuscate the facts and treat the genocide as any other allegation. Wikipedia needs more responsible editors, not individuals who come here with a battlefield mentality, looking for a fight to take on the perceived enemies of his country.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by PhilKnight From the appeal, I'd like to compare a couple quotes: "I stopped after 9 reverts" "Any of you can check my history and see that I rarely edit and none of them are major or disruptive" Consequently, I think he should remain banned. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Kansas Bear Since his ban(Apr 10), TDLS has edited only two articles;Nuclear power in France(once) and Category talk:Christian monasteries in Turkey(once), in nearly two months. This along with his alleged accidental edit on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide(Apr 11) and his involvement in the WP:Arbitration concerning Marshall Bagramyan,[80], leads me to see this editor as a WP:SPA that suffers from battlefield mentality. This editor has shown no inclination to edit other articles or work with other editors through talk pages. Since the evidence is quite obvious, the ban should remain. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by Aregakn 1) For the participants not to be deluded, I'd like to note, that the pattern of behavior of TheDarkLordSeth (TDLS) in the subject frame of Articles can in no way be described civil or appropriate: My very first edit on the talk-page of the Armenian Genocide was on March 25 2010. The very reply to this 1st edit by TDLS was already an attack [81]: "Are you incapable of understanding your own arguments?" and irrelevant comment "You talk so much for someone claiming that this place is not a forum." Many of such personal attack-comments can be noted from the discussions (too many to be noted by diffs) "Your logic is simply flawed" [82], "You're trying to portray Turks as worst as possible by twisting reality" [83] 2) Soon it was also obvious, that he engaged in the subject articles with a strong tendency of denial: he permanently dismissed tens of international associations of scholars specialising on History and Genocide (i.e. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, Genocide Watch etc.) with mere claims, leave alone other scholarly WP:RSs. the article with thousands of editors involved in many years was labeled as propaganda-only from the beginning, the editors involved - pathetic, and this tendency never declined [84]. 3) Attacks and comments and accusations on national, ethnic, racial, religious and other belongin were always in place: "I understand your attempt to smudge truth as you're an Armenian..." [85], "... the Armenians will continue to use propaganda tools of WWI..." [86], "I bet that you're a Greek. The reason the so-called victims are pussyfooting is not because they're pushed to do that by the Turks but because that's the only thing they can do..." etc. To be true, I am very much surprised, that such attacks based on racial and ethnic belonging are indorsed in A way and at all. I remember clearly from Wikipedia:Personal_attacks#Blocking_for_personal_attacks that these type of attacks should lead to immediate, indefinite block. They were repeated and the requests to stop were never taken into consideration by TDLS. A topic ban, in this case, doesn't prevent the editor remaining a racist. And it has encouraged and induced others editors of such type to engage in the same topic in the same manner Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Armenians_are_abusing_Wiki [87]. Considering all the above and his permanent engagement in discussions of issues in his broad topic ban (I have noticed 5 and can bring diffs if requested), I'd suggest not only rejecting the appeal, but also blocking the editor indefinitely. Aregakn (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Nothing more to add but just that I said my first comment was on 25 of March and the answer was an attack.Aregakn (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by Sardur The situation has been fairly explained in the preceding comments, and I won't repeat them. I would just underlined that a comment such as "To me the fact that a very controversial article is being heavily edited by mostly members of a certain nationality is important but being warned by an admin was enough to not pursue such an argument" (my emphasis) plainly shows that, even if the argument was to be true (quod non), TheDarkLordSeth still shows no comprehension of the way WP works. Sardur (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I won't react on Wikilawyering. I nevertheless have to react on "You can simply check those edits and see that all of them were minor ones": that's a mischaracterization at least, as among the 14 edits on Armenian Genocide, 11 replaced "The Armenian Genocide [...] refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction [...]" by "The Armenian Genocide [...] refers to the claim of deliberate and systematic destruction [...]"; this is at minimum WP:UNDUE, and definitely not minor. Sardur (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Question to AGK (or any other admin reviewing this case): TheDarkLordSeth just made one contribution in main since his topic ban (for whatever reason, that's not the issue); wouldn't it be wiser to see how he can contribute before giving him a second chance and lifting his topic ban? I mean, I'm absolutely not against giving a second chance to any user, but shouldn't such a user first demonstrate by concrete collaborative contributions that he deserves it? Sardur (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Answer to TheDarkLordSeth: "To me If my actions can be unjustly prosecuted with no real grounds": there were real grounds, see Tim Song's statement here and the comments by admins during the first request and its review. And to AGK (or any other admin reviewing this case): according to his own words, TheDarkLordSeth is "not asking for a second chance" but "thorough examination and judgment of [his] case". His case (i.e. the 9 reverts) has been decided once and already reviewed once; do you see any new element allowing for a reversal of this reviewed topic ban? I see none, and quite the contrary. Sardur (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by Ionidasz Checking his contributions, I see one major problem. First of, he is extremly POV in his edits, he came and jumped right into edit warring and incivility, rhetorics along the lines of battleground mentality. He got a topic ban restricted to subjects regarding the Armenian Genocide if I understand correctly. What he does? Right on, he request it to be lifted, there are several subjects about Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan etc. he is free to edit. So in short, is a SPA account. Nothing that wrong here, a SPA account with a battleground rhetoric..., who jumped right into edit warring, and who still wants to remain a SPA account. The arguments he is using does not address the issues of the initial topic restriction at all, in fact, he did no significant contributions outside of the Armenian Genocide, no basis to justify the lifting of a topic ban. This means that waving the restriction means that the restriction was an administrative mistake. I have hard time believing that, when a SPA account jumps right into edit war with very controversial edits, has a battleground mentality and refuse to participate in any other things than simply adding materials which goes against the thesis of the Armenian Genocide. Wave his restriction at your own risk when you will basically saying that the administrator who imposed it did a mistake. Ionidasz (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) To AGK: One example of his battle ground rhetorics: need to congratulate you as you and some other members who are clearly Armenian are trying to rewrite history here in success. [88] He made full of such statments. A SPA account, who jumps right in edit warrings and continiously makes such statments, and first thing he does is wanting to have this restriction lifted. He's lucky of nothing having been blocked as a probable sock. I was asked to be checkusered in at least 3 cirumstances for less, much much less. Ionidasz (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Darklordseth, that's beside the point, check what POV means, that's not reason for topic ban alone, it's not the place to debate about content. But you have caused neadless revert wars for things such minor as this, and your edit summary here was also intriging, when no information was removed. What's more intriging is that you had by then already acquired enough of wikipedia policy about neutrality to use it to justify your edits, something which we would not readily expect from a new editor but at the same time you were engaged in disruptive editing. Also, you're asking for a reevaluating of your topic ban, not a second chance. A second chance request is done under the basis of documented change of behavior. You had no other article mainspace edit to rely on to ask for a second chance. And your topic ban was already reevaluated and declined so AGK proposal for an appeal is not really by the book. Ionidasz (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC) To AGK 2: Two administrators have declined a ban lift, and several users have also opposed it, what legimity a lifting can have here, I wonder. Should such a controversial topic ban lifting be decided by the Arbitration committee, the endorser does not want to lift it, and another administrator reject it. So we would obviously have a problem if you lift it by yourself. Particularly when the lifting can not be justified by the second chance, as there is no significant contribution after the endorsment on which we can rely on. The review was already rejected. Ionidasz (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) To TheDarkLordSeth regarding why a ban was justified : Your topic ban can not much be justified by the 9 reverts than the language you have used in the talkpage when you have a very limited number of contributions. I have shown you one and it was found only by checking two of your contributions in the talkpage. We're not talking about one battleground statment but many... in your reply you even have gone so far as justifying it by providing a source. This is unacceptable, you would have had a long block had someone reported you for that language insteed of those 9 reverts. You also seem to be very acquainted with Wikipedia way of functionning and this already when you have very limited number of edits. You acted as a SPA account who has jumped right into massive edit warring, given your limited contribution and have use unacceptable battleground language. Besides, you are even not asking for a second chance, you are asking for a reevaluation of your case. But it was already reevaluated and rejected. In principle, you should file an arbitration request to lift your topic ban. But once they read the language you have used, they will reject it. You should contribute in uninvolved subjects then use the argument that you want a second chance. Ionidasz (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Your replay to this above can be resumed in one line. I take it that you accuse the other editors, and they're to blame. Apparently then, you don't even feal your responsability. One more reason why your request should be dismissed. Ionidasz (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Result of the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Other than the single case of nine reverts, I see no other disruptive edits. If there are any, I ask that diffs of them be provided. Otherwise, I will move to extend a second chance. AGK 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) After about three days of discussion, consensus among commentators (many of whom, however, appear to be involved in disputes in the topic area) is that that the ban should remain in force. At any rate, there is clearly not the "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" that would be required to lift the sanction. The appeal is thereby closed as unsuccessful. TheDarkLordSeth may still appeal the sanction to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Need admin closure

Resolved

Of course, now the fireworks will begin.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been archived twice with no response. Can someone please help?

Can an admin please look at the discussion at the talk page of Occupied Palestinian Territory regarding the proposed merge to Palestinian territories? The discussion is mainly several months old but was never closed, and the merge was never completed. Since it is quite controversial and I foresee objections, I'd appreciate if an admin would close the discussion and gage consensus rather than do it myself and go ahead with the merge on my own. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: there is also a small discussion of the merge here. Breein1007 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

For those involved regularly in WP:RM

I started a discussion about some minor topic (relisting) at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Relisted discussions. Since this is almost only an admin area, I'd be happy to hear some comments. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Semi-Protect AN and ANI

Resolved

 – Proposal withdrawn by originator

At present, AN and ANI are semi-protected due to vandalism. I have lost count on how many times this has happened this week. Be it sockpuppetry, vandalism, harrassment, personal attacks, whatever...the page is almost always semi-protected anymore. Let's make it permanent.

I propose that AN and ANI be permanently semi-protected and any anons and new accounts could use a seperate page (perhaps WP:AN-ANON or WP:ANI-ANON) to voice complaints or issues. The new pages could be just as watched as AN or ANI, but vandalism on the main AN and ANI pages would be down to nothing. The new pages would be only for anons and new accounts that haven't reached the magic edit number yet. Yeah, it would be a temporary fix, but it also couldn't hurt. What say you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That countermands the principle in WP:ADMIN that admins should be open to approach from any editor, registered or not. Many editors come here in the absence of experience of other venues, and we should not deny them access. Meanwhile this page is only semi-protected when absolutely necessary, and for the shortest possible time. A sub-page for non-autoconfirmed editors would merely shift the problem elsewhere, and require duplication of Watchlist monitoring, and overall, I don't see it being useful. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Where would we get all the complaints about zOMG admin abuse? Even the valid ones? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying we deny anyone access, just "push" them onto another page. This would keep the main AN and ANI pages open and free of vandalism and other crap, while there is a free and open page for anons and non-autoconfirmed users. When they are autoconfirmed, they can go to AN and ANI. But the anons will be at the "side pages". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That proposal denies the equality of editorship that we are keen to promote here. Although I've seen vandalism mostly from IP's, I have no wish to create a ghetto here. Rodhullandemu 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea. I will see how it goes for others, if it looks like a snow "no", I will pull the proposal and ask an admin to close it....but I would like to get more opinions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are so many editors watching AN and ANI, things get fixed way fast, one way or another, allowing GF IPs mostly easy input. Setting up pages for IPs alone could stir up even more woes, WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sending IPs to other pages will not lower the amount of abuse the noticeboards get; it will just move it to new places. Like an old man used to say, if you want to break the vase, you will find a way... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I'd much rather the noticeboards got hit than the articles.©Geni 01:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it was worth a shot. I never said it was a great idea, just an idea. Since this has been all "no"s, any admin (involved or not, no matter) can mark this resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

CAT:SD

Currently 165 articles tagged for speedy deletion (was 158 when I got there). A hand taking a look would be appreciated. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, most of those talk pages should have been dealt with by 7SeriesBOT I should think - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the original 7SeriesBOT is shutdown while the new code is in test mode ... and I'm merely waiting for the final go-ahead to re-enable actual deletion by him...was probably due by now! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is about WildBot again, I think it should really gather its findings on a centralized page in user- or projectspace where it could update the list itself instead of spamming CAT:SD every time a request has been handled. Jafeluv (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, WildBot does its job well - that's the whole reason a "clean up" bot was created ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Stockholm

I've unprotected this article (has been semi'd since March) with the backing of an edit notice. Please can we be less lenient on any editor who vandalises the article that we might normally be. There have been sockpuppet issues with this article in the past too. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Tennis expert is back, jumping between anon IPs

Just a heads-up that the aforementioned user is back (recently editing as 70.253.89.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.253.81.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) - the recent edit history of these IPs, along with the geolocation and IP info easily pass the duck test. Any admin who watches tennis pages, in particular, please be aware. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Two further IPs have just been used : 70.253.78.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.34.100.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Giano

I am closing this discussion as clearly rejected. Further discussion will not help in any way. Wikipedia is for writing articles, not for pursuing feuds. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

I propose Giano be community banned, or at least indeff blocked until a satisfactory Giano specific dispute resolution framework is initiated. I assert that right minded editors have had enough of the situation where he has the evident freedom to do and say things that others editors simply cannot, and that most admins will simply not go near him with a block unless he commits cyber suicide himself, and commits an offence so blatant, it would be moot as to whether he is getting special treatment or not. His behaviour is frequently destructive, demoralising, and down-right divisive, not least when he thinks he is fighting for the greater good or the body politic, and because he knows he has wide lattitude, without a framework, it is not going to stop anytime soon. The project has wasted too much time, and too many words, pretending this is not a real phenomenom, with real consequences. The ban proposal is based on the long term pattern of behaviour, but the latest example of how Giano is treated differently was the recent campaign against Treasury Tag, calling him over a 24 hour period, an 'odious harassing bully' (and per policy and simple common sense, nay decency, it is totally irrelevant whether he is one or not btw, before anyone goes down that route) He was warned by an admin, and he not only rejected that warning, he restored the last attack. So he was blocked, for personal attacks and the restoration thereof, and then after two hours, he was unilaterally unblocked, on the apparent rationale that there is no point blocking Giano. Some people have suggested that these latest acts were not blockable, but I don't believe that one bit, and I think that the prevailing opinion among right minded editors is that they are, routinely, when the perpetrator is not Giano, and for good reasons. But whether you think of yourself as some Wikipedia anti-hero, whether you wish a plague on all the admin's houses, or whether you just have a more relaxed outlook on life, it's basic fact that such behaviour is not, and never will be, part of effective dispute resolution. Infact, I find it a bit rich that what caused this sustained tirade, was Giano's claim that Wikipedia was tolerating harassment and bullying of another editor. Others have even suggested Giano can do what he likes in this case, as he was exposing The Truth. If people want the project to be run that way, well, good luck to you, but I think most do not, and would rather leave than put up with it. Despite wishing it to succeed, I fully expect this ban proposal to fail, and my preferred solution is an arbitration case to examine the defacto situation, per the section on ANI. But it has been suggested there that this is the more appropriate avenue first. So here we are. And for the purposes of progressing that case, if you respond here, please indicate whether or not you are an admin. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. The note if you are an admin bit is for the impending arbitration case, it has nothing to do with the ban discussion. I am well aware of how community bans work, and am not asking for it to be decided by a consensus of admins. It just makes my life easier in filing the case later, as that will revolve around the views and actions of admins alone. See the ANI post for further details. I hope this clears that up. And for the record, I am as calm as a millpond, and if people want me to withdraw and repost this proposal in a weeks time, I can and I will, because my views won't have changed in that time. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) P.P.S to clarify the expectation of it failing comment, that's just my natural cynicism, part of the general disbelief that the phenomenon has been allowed to develop in the first place. Consider it redacted if it helps anyone in believing this is a real ban proposal. I am not here to waste anybody's time, and if it succeeds, it saves me time in filing the arbitration case. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Giano has thrice tried to remove this thread, with a strong PA on the first go. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support as initiator. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (per your request, I indicate that I am not an admin) I think you are wasting other people's and your own time. I also think you sound quite angry, and therefore should perhaps revisit this issue in a week. According to your assertion I do not qualify as right-minded, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I am an admin. Giacomo "gets away with it" because there is too much effort and time wasted in trying to have him blocked for behaviour that is ignored when done by other accounts of similar experience and content contribution, that such issues are routinely rebuffed by the community (you know, that majority that doesn't fit in with your "right thinking editor" grouping), that most blocks placed are lacking in consensus, discussion, or admin availability. That is why. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) ps. When taking this to ArbCom, I really suggest that you review my rationale and subsequent comments and try to more accurately reflect my reasoning. Support (and I am an admin, but one who mostly observes the drama instead of getting knee-deep in it). The bottom line is whether this encyclopedia incurs a net benefit or net deficit with him as a contributing editor or not. I assert that despite his positive contributions, the collective effort expended by multiple editors during the (sadly) too-frequent episodes of drama is excessive, and holds back the communities' efforts to build the encyclopedia. Every minute wasted on debating his blocks and unblocks, his civility, etc. is one less minute spent on article writing or maintenance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support He is playing you for fools. Leaky Caldron 23:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support I doubt very much that I am the only one who rolls his eyes whenever Giano appears on ANI, which is far too frequently. Resolute 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support for his latest action alone. When a user posts a ban thread about you, you are not allowed to revert it. You are certainly not allowed to revert it three times. Also support a trout for MZMcBride, for reverting the thread another three times (while cautioning other users about edit warring!). The WordsmithCommunicate 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose. Quite apart from his outstanding record of content contributions (isn't this what we are supposed to be doing around here?), Giano is one of the few people here who has enough character, humanity, sanity and integrity to call a spade a spade. We need more of that, not less. Note that a community ban is imposed by a broad selection of community members, not the admin community. I see no indication in Wikipedia:Community_ban#Community_bans_and_restrictions that any admin's word should carry more weight in a community ban decision than that of any other member in the community, so I will not comply with your request. --JN466 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comment on this last point (only) - yes, community bans and restrictions are decided by the community writ large. Administrators are often an integral part of these discussions, but all editors' relevant comments are considered and weighted in reviewing consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, Mick needs to calm down and stop misusing these boards to pursue his grudge. I do not understand why Mick has asked editors to indicate whether or not they are admins (though in case anyone is in any doubt, I am not now, nor have I ever been or wanted to be, an admin). DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) As a general comment (without commenting on the specific ban proposal), I'm not sure what the point is putting forth a proposal you know will fail. It just seems to be be designed to create a lot of drama and make a point, two reasons why I would think we wouldn't make threads like this. Revaluation (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I pretty much pointed him here and said to do this as an alternative to the by-now pointless ANI thread; there was some risk that this would actually happen. I don't believe it's guaranteed to fail, though I suspect so. I am concerned that it's going to degenerate and that it was phrased in a more confrontational manner to start with than is best practice. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Support - I was on the fence. I thought LessHeardVanU's unblock was ill advised and added more noise than light, but I was willing to give Giano some degree of benefit of the doubt...but then I see the attempts to remove this thread including uncivil comments/personal attacks. Giano just doesn't get it, and he clearly never will. Lets stop wasting community time on him. (And I'm most definitely not an admin) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Without commenting on the ban, when's the last time Giano has written a quality article? 2005? Most of the good ones I find from him are from the early days of the site, nothing from the past couple years. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I will tolerate so much rubish, but not this: So far in the last month there has been two quite big pages, one with a plan which took 2 weeks to make and a few stubs to keep them comapany. Perhaps you are not looking at Wikipedia.  Giacomo  23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have, we just edit in different areas so I haven't seen them. Thanks for answering. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) User contributions are a fair guide; these are from mid May before the recent round of drama - click on the "next oldest" and see what Giacomo does when not embroiled on these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong Support - To hell with what one editor above called his "outstanding record of content contributions", the problems he creates make those contributions moot. You could have someone be a continuous GA/FA article contributor, but if he is violating every rule in the book, it doesn't matter, that user would need to go too. Same with Giano...he has been the subject of countless AN and ANI threads, shamelessly violated every rule in the book and not been punished for it. Time he is punt kicked and banhammered like he should. If he can shape up and act right, then he can always use the unblock template, but for now, he needs to go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Certainly not, and I take exception to the nebulous assertion that anyone who disagrees with your proposal is not right minded. Perhaps those who disagree (clearly imbalanced!) should be shuffled off the project too? In fact MickMackNee, while you assert that Giano is a bully and engages in harassment, this bears the hallmarks of those traits. Giano's been accused of harassment and bullying, but I must be getting double vision because that seems to be what's happening here. But as Giano baiting seems to be one of Wikipedia's favoured past times I'm sure you have no need to fear repercussions. Nev1 (talk) [no longer an admin] 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Strong oppose On the basis that this is a malformed request. Using the phrase "right-minded editors" is anti-wiki, patronising and insulting. Just participating is bad enough because it lends credibility to this nonsense, but I just wanted to voice my opinion. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Not only does his benefits outweigh his problems, but if these 'violations' are tolerated they are not 'violations' at all- site policy can and does lag somewhat behind community consensus, and is descriptive of that consensus, not proscriptive of our actions. Also, the subtle charge that those who value Giano's quality contribution are some how not 'right minded' is just, well, insulting. You might need to take a wikibreak my friend, this seems to have tipped into WP:BATTLE for you. --Mask? 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support Given what Gwen mentioned above about Giano trying to unilaterally terminate this discussion before it began--and throwing in a PA in the process--I'd have to say he's now deliberately flaunting process. A line has to be drawn at some point, and the massive COI in his attempt to suppress the discussion here has to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose A bloo bloo bloo Giano was mean to me. In my experience Giano never starts trouble unless provoked. If you don't like him, avoid him, as he rarely edits outside of his interests around here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I never got involved until he was unblocked, and the proposal is certainly not in reaction to anything he's ever said to me. And as far as I can see in the latest incident that led to his block, it was Giano who went looking for TT, not the other way around. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) But TT went after RAN TT gave the impression of going after RAN, and Giano was defending a fellow content contributor who was by no means as well-equipped to deal with the harassment. I see nobody has been sanctioned for that. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Pardon me butting in, but that is a lie. I did not "go after" anybody, and the reason nobody was sanctioned for harassment is that there was no harassment. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Excuse me for being equally blunt, but your denial is the lie. However, I'll refactor my shorthand for the sake of clarity. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The problem is, that making an assertion such as that without justifying it is slanderous [not a legal threat, just an adjective] and unhelpful to the discussion. Thanks for your refactoring, but my denial is the absolute truth. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It is a common tactic to dissociate the cause of Giano's outburst by claiming that "it is not helpful". As for your denial, you will understand that unfavourable commentary is not slander when it is true - and in this case your denial is untrue. No "right-minded" editor could look at the list of 105 of RAN's files that you proposed for deletion and the number of articles and user pages that he created without concluding that you were going after him. I've yet to see even an acknowledgement from you that your actions were inappropriate. That's the least you could do if you want others to believe you had decent intentions. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It is not untrue (perhaps you are confusing 'truth' with 'belief'), and numerous "right-minded" editors have looked at the situation and agree with me that, while I may not have handled things in the best possible way, I was acting entirely in good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you are also confusing truth with belief. Everybody agrees that you did not handle things in the best possible way - however, most "right-minded" editors really can't see any way you could have handled them worse. It's going to take some expression of regret from you for the distress caused to RAN by proposing deletion of 120 of the articles and files he has worked on, before others are going to accept your assertion that you were "acting entirely in good faith". --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I am expressing no regret further than I already have, because I feel none and I don't believe in insincere apologies. I was acting entirely in good faith and any assertion to the contrary is an insult without any basis in fact. I will not be engaging in further discussion with you about this. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) As you wish. I'll leave it for others to decide at the Arbitration case whether your harassment of RAN has any basis in fact. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well yes, I did say Giano would likely get support simply because he was exposing The Truth in that particular incident, and you can see my views on that. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I assert that right minded editors have had enough; so there. Bielle (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I read the proposal, and did not find any single difference of Giano own contributions that could have confirmed that the ban is the only option. Community ban of such contributor as Giano is way too serious decision to support it based only on the talking. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Not seeing anything worth doing a community ban over at all. Block log isn't nearly as bad as some others, and almost all the blocks seem to have been overturned as either incorrect or per further evaluation and discussion. We have far more editors who are not good contributors and who are far worse in terms of civility and violating policies than the few incidents pointed to here, and said editors are even praised for some of their mess. I suspect Giano is *gasp* human, and sometimes loses his temper but seems to not be a constant, on-going thing and most incidents seem provoked more than anything. Ban should be a last resort, and I just don't see that all options have really been exhausted on addressing any issues here. And no, I'm not an admin and am unlikely ever to be one.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support. The repeated pattern of inappropriate behavior is non-constructive, and toxic to the community and the project. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Cirt, with all due respect, I prefer Giano's alleged toxicity over TT's reign of error any time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) One issue at a time. Let's not compare. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oh but we must. Because we must provide context. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Too many crocodile tears. The man hours wasted on these endeavours are depressingly huge. David D. (Talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose I find the proposal strong in assertions (not to mention the assumption those who disagree are not right minded) and astonishingly weak in evidence. Where are the diffs?. Once we start banning editors on heresay, speculation and one side of the story, we really will have created the two-tier wikipedia that Giano believes already exists. Ban him like this and you prove his point more effectively than anything he could do himself. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support. A sustained and repeated pattern of brazenly disruptive behavior should not be tolerated. The attempt to remove this thread was, in and of itself, worthy of a longish block. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. What an incredibly stupid and dishonest idea. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Presumably because I haven't listed the hundred and one times you have been victim of far far worse attacks with no action on the perpetrators, and how that means the Wikipedia should simply be a free for all and that anybody should be able to say anything to anybody. That sort of dishonesty? Or the sort of dishonesty where you don't reveal your stance that you hold all admins in utter contempt, meaning that any discussion of the issue of whether any admin is or isn't treating Giano as a special case, is moot, because they are all lying cheating bastards and that stringing up is too good for any of them? That sort of honesty? To say that you have a massive chip on your shoulder about Wikipedia's behavioural policies would be a huge understatement frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) nope — Giano's a fine fellow if you don't poke him with a stick. This is all really ripe coming from Mick, whose last indef should have stuck. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And I didn't have to rely on the 'don't poke the bear' defence to not have to suffer that ignomy, frankly. And see above, nobody poked Giano in this case, and half the time this really is just a convenient fiction. MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The TT/RAN thing? Seems a noble but misplaced effort. have a cookie ;) Jack Merridew 03:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It is The Game. You have lost it. - Really, in the grand tradition of Wikipedia-as-MMORPG, "the community" has let this user (and others) get away with so much for so long that any attempt to ban now is automatically tainted by past inaction. Every new AN or AN/I thread is a regurgitation of the past. Every "this time we really mean it" is hijacked by others screaming that the procedure is just a way to exact revenge of the times in the past he's slipped through unscathed. Is Giano a dick? Absolutely. But the Wikipedia is luch, fertile ground that allows dicks to flourish, so he is a creation of all of you. Short of a Kohs-like Great Purge from on high, you're stuck with him. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose In the last three months or so I have noticed several threads regarding Giano, and I chose to have a quick look at most of them to judge for myself what was going on. It was abundantly clear that Giano was reacting to provocation (or stupidity, which per WP:COMPETENCE really disqualifies the opponent from interacting on pages of iterest to Giano). I seem to recall some comments by Giano of more than a year ago that would unambiguously be regarded as a breach of WP:CIVIL, and I used to get a bit irritated when no 24-hour block could be made to stick (that's all that was needed: one or two implemented 24-hour blocks would easily stop uncivil comments from someone as smart and as helpful as Giano). However, in recent times, the incidents that I have checked (particularly those regarding a certain now-retired admin) involved completely inappropriate baiting of Giano. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) So are you saying Giano is not in control of his actions? In which case he should be blocked immediately.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) On re-reading my comment I see that I failed to note that, in the cases I looked at, I believe Giano was not unduly uncivil. Certainly after a fair bit of poking he poked back, but I do not see anything undue. If an editor were to be uncivil to a newish editor (say by dismissing their imperfect editing attempts), I would complain about the incivility. But, in the last three or so months, I have only seen Giano engage robustly with experienced editors who should not be bothered with an open appraisal of their performance. I acknowledge that I have not studied the WP:TLDR details currently on this page, so if someone has some specific diffs to support this proposal, they should be produced. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose silencing dissent voices. Sole Soul (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) support the community needs to actually prove that the rules apply equally.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose The nominator, User:MickMacNee, seems to regularly indulge in similar ranting behaviour and so this proposal seems too ironic to take seriously. The root cause of this drama seems to be Treasury Tag's behaviour. He has now taken to nominating articles such as Minister of State for Security for deletion - absurd proposals which receive no support at all. Our sanctions should focus on those who are not here here to build the encyclopedia, rather than those who are. Giano is a builder not a destroyer and so should be commended rather than criticised. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Quite why TT hasn't been blocked or at least severely warned for his disruptive AfD noms I don't know. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Probably because disruption requires intent, while I am acting in good faith, but feel free to open an ANI thread or an RfC about me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 10:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC) No, it's perfectly possible for a clue-lacking editor to cause disruption in good faith, and for them to be warned, blocked, or banned if they fail to acquire clue. The nom of the Minister of State for Security article can only be explained by a profound clue-failure. I hope it does not repeat itself. DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) OK, whatever you like. If you have a problem with my behaviour, muttering about it in an irrelevant thread helps nobody and nothing (except perhaps your id). ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 10:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) This is a relevant thread (in that your behaviour is part of the sequence of events that led here), and I'm not a Freudian. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well yes, and it is odd in the whole 'so and so started it theme' at play here, where somehow Giano is blameless and he can't control himself or stop himself from making continued and sustained personal attacks because it's all TT's fault really, that people seem unwilling or unable to go one step further back in time, to the rfb/xeno2 incident. Maybe because that is not on the menu for public consumption as part of the official conspiracy. MickMacNee (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Mick, you've got to stop with you bizarre conspiracy theories. And you and TT need to co-ordinate your attacks better, you seem to want to go further back, TT doesn't (but then neither of you want ayone going into your own histories of incivility, harrasssment, pointy noms and attacks). DuncanHill (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I only want you to go as far back as is relevant to the current dispute, if we are to use your proposed method of dispute resolution, the 'he started it' game. And you might think that accusing me of coordinating with TT is remotely plausible, others can freely investigate with the variety of tools available, if they are so gullible. But this is really just another sign of how disfunctional and divisive the whole Giano behavioural issue has become. It's about anything and everything except Giano, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how ironic, and no matter how self-defeating, the excuses and justifications put up are. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Anytime you've got any evidence of me running around for 24 hours calling another editor an odious harassing bully, and me not being blocked for it, you let me know Colonel Warden. This can be any time you like, and when you do I'll do you the courtesy of not responding in the way Giano would to such an obvious attempt to smear. MickMacNee (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Absolute oppose As an another editor who is not "right-minded" according to MickMacNee, I strongly oppose sanctions against Giano. Giano is a most essential member of the Wikipedia community, an endless source of fascination and entanglement for those members who compulsively gravitate towards this sort of thing. He is a marvellous target for those editors who want to publically proclaim that they are here "to build an encyclopedia" (invariably editors whose own contributions are nebulous). He is also a marvellous, not so blank slate, where the self righteous can project their drama, and bask in their own little place in the sun on the admin noticboard, while pretending that Giano is the problem and not them. Giano generously occupies members who want to stir drama but don't want to be seen as the dramatist. In this way, he deflects them from greater mischief. Were we to ban Giano, we would desperately need to find a replacement. And how we could do that? Giano is peerless; who could fill those big boots? I propose, instead, that we declare Giano a Wikipedia community institution and treasure. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I knew this proposal would attract some bizarre comments, but this really does take the biscuit as a 'rationale'. Although I professed to know how the ban process works, I am at a loss as to whether the closer is obliged to give any weight to such blatantly absurd reasoning. It's effectively, 'keep, drama magnet'. Truly amazing. Almost like turning up at an Afd and declaring, 'keep, blatant madeup bollocks'. MickMacNee (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) In the absence of tone of voice for online communications, do consider the possibility of sarcasm. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I suppose it could be. I hope it is, actually. The possibility it isn't is just too depressing to even contemplate. MickMacNee (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong support—while Giano's repeated deletion of this thread because it was "not a good idea" highlights the problem with his editing, it is by no means the only issue at hand. Giano (and, seemingly, everyone else) thinks that because he goes on a self-instigated crusade to uncover The Shining Light of Truth that should entitle him to formal exemption from our civility policies. But his constant rudeness and disruption is more trouble than it is worth. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 08:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Weak oppose in favour of my alternative proposal below. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Duh. what else is there to say? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Unless we get to ban all the ANI dramatists. Misarxist (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. It has long been my belief, founded on observing the many and varied dramas in which Giano has been a participant, that the problem is not his behaviour in itself. He has a knack of performing at just the right level of disruptiveness that some are absolutely convinced it is against the rules, while others are equally convinced it's entirely within them. Instead the problem is the misplaced behaviour of others in either seeking to condemn him or support him, and the ensuing drama. That's the disruption, not what Giano does. And while I wouldn't rule out in principle a community ban as a solution to that problem, I just don't think it can be justified here. On top of that, I have to say that those who think that enacting a community ban will cause the problem to go away are entirely mistaken. Instead there will be a further drama about attempts to overturn it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. By-and-large, Giano is on the side of the angels. He is trying to improve the encyclopedia, stem bullying, shine light on dirty secrets in the dark corners, etc. If his word choices less often distracted from his own good points, he would have been an administrator years ago, and maybe the best arbitrator we've had. Wknight94 talk 11:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose. It's becoming an almost regular lynch mob scene, with the usual suspects involved. Minkythecat (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose an outright ban. A ban on editing in the Wikipedia name space, except for dispute resolution and featured article process could be worth trying. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose - the only actual reasoning for this request seems to be the need for there to periodically be an attempt to get Giano banned. If there was a specific incident that this was in response to, I might feel differently, but I don't really see that. What annoys me the most is that, generally speaking, Giano rarely goes berserk of his own accord - people just can't resist poking him, and using the inevitable response to try and ban him (again). Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result... Ale_Jrbtalk 12:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I think what really triggered this was the recent RAN/TT incident (plenty of threads at ANI about this). - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I read that, and I disagreed with Giano in that instance. What I meant, is that I fail to see what especially he did that was so inappropriate (yes, it was annoying and pointless. Yes, it caused some drama. But that describes everything that happens on these noticeboards), when most of it was caused because other people obsessivly bait him. In the RAN case, I think TT and some of his defenders acted poorly, and just kept the situation going longer than it should. Had anybody else opened the thread, my question that eventually closed it (i.e. what admin action are you looking for? It was closed like 4 responses later...) would have been asked much earlier, and the thread would have gone away. I'm not really defending some of his actions - but the reason that bans always fail, imo, is because the mitigating circumstances are always so massive, because people just won't leave him alone. He does sometimes start things, but (much?) more often than not it was somebody else. Ale_Jrbtalk 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You should probably go look at all the places this latest dispute was being played out in. This was not restricted to ANI, and even Giano knows to tone it down when speaking on the admins board - he has leeway, but he is not daft. The place where has was actually blocked was his own talk page, but the attacks were coming from him toward TT for a sustained time and over many areas before that though, his restoration of an attack and compulsory contempt for the admin who warned him not to do it, was just the inevitable finale. And to repeat it again because it cannot be said enough apparently given some of the stock theories emerging here, Giano was not baited in this incident, not by any stretch of the imagniation. He chose to take up someone else's cause, and due to something that is unique to him and his status here, he chose to take it up with the full repertoire of attacks and conspiracies and declarations and threats and everything else that comes with it. Leading eventually, like an unstoppable and predictable train, to the warn/restoration/block/unblock referred to. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And he was also warned about half way through the unfolding campaign by another admin aswell, but this is just another aspect of the dispute that people just want to ignore/overlook, if they are even aware of it. I probably didn't even think to mention it myself because it's become just another part of the accepted institutional aspect of Giano, that it's almost taken for granted in any dispute that there will be at some point, ignored warnings from admins in there somewhere, in the rare cases that admins even bother to warn him now. I mean, why are you going to bother warning someone who cannot be blocked? Not to mention the fact that warninsg are only really there in the few cases a perpetrator can, in good conscience, claim to not know what they were doing was an out and out violation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Super Super Super Strong Oppose: This counts as four oppose votes, as you all know. I still consider myself a new editor, but I have seen enough to applaud Giano for his good work. Too many editors (though a very small % overall) on wikipedia become insane hall monitors, and all Giano does is call a spade a spade when he sees it. It was the freshest breath of air I saw in a long time when recently, on Malleus' talkpage, a civility-pushing troll was told to "Fuck off troll" by Malleus. Frankly, in the real world, we all need to be told to fuck off once in awhile, it keeps us honest. MicMacNee's opening comment here is essentially a very long version of "fuck off Giano" comment. Now that some steam has been let off, just close this dramamongering thread. A ban would only create more steam and drama. I agree with Sam Blacketer's comment.--Milowent (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Go on then, fuck off. Leaky Caldron 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Now don't you feel better?--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I bet you wouldn't dare to tell someone to fuck off here though, would you Milowent? I've done it before, it felt great at the time because I thought the guy was trolling me, until the indef block came crashing down. You want Giano et al to have the right to tell people to fuck off, then fine, just make sure you get and I get it too. It's rank hypocrisy otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I do tell people to fuck off on here, but not using those words. So do you. And the fact is rules are never enforced precisely evenly against everyone in the world, and never will be. Its not rank hypocrisy, its reality. Giano is more abrasive then some, but in totality, he does not deserve a ban by any stretch.--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Another super Strong Oppose for any sanction against Giano either now or in the future. Vulgar language may be objectionable but infinitely less so than ganging up to harass productive editors. I appreciate the desire that all editors should be treated equally under the rules, and therefore a more elegant proposal has been raised to resolve this situation. One that will be of net benefit to the community rather than impoverishing it with the loss of one of it most noble, colourful and creative contributors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Just 'wow' for that proposal. Thankyou everybody who has turned a blind eye to Giano in the past, you've just got a really big reminder right there with that insane proposal as to what kind of a fucked up place you've turned this site into MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Mick, a quiet word, if you must run up and down this thread like a racing grehound, could you moderate your language. It's getting just a trifle obnoxious. Thanks.  Giacomo  19:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The amount of wishy washy, sycophantic clap trap spouted by some of the appeasers of this contemptible individual and others like him is breathtaking. They want an elite cadre of “great content contributors” who, because of their status are not obliged to follow rules relating to civility. That immature, self-centred attitude will drive away ordinary editors. There is “no net benefit” in supporting these disruptive elements and those who believe that there is are simplistic followers. Leaky Caldron 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Hey who here, callng MickmcNee an "contemptible individual" is a personal attack. You could be banned for that.  Giacomo  19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt and to put a prick in your thinly veiled attempt at humour, it's you I'm talking about. Leaky Caldron 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose No time for lynch mobs. Mo ainm~Talk 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What Tarc Said. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose a ban on Giano, who is a net asset to the project. Support TT and MMN not commenting on every post in this thread they don't like. EdChem (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I do like this one :) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Strong Support I've observed Giano in various cases, and have been disgusted by his attitude. I can recall one ANI thread in particular, where he had been reported for misuse of rollback. His response to the thread was, in a nutshell, go ahead and remove it, I don't care if I have it or not. One argument that has been posted in this thread, that Giano's incivility is the result of provocation, also does not hold water, IMHO. If he doesn't keep his response to these "provocations" within acceptable limits, he is at fault. Furthermore, I have seen other troublesome, yet productive, editors told that their useful contributions could not offset any disruption they had caused. So, I am not inclined to overlook his behavior because of his contributions. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) NO! Shock! Horror! "I can recall one ANI thread in particular, where he had been reported for misuse of rollback." You nust be mistaken it is strictly verboten to bring a rollback complaint to ANI - where is Stifle? Stifle tell this man he is mistaken - it could not have happened.  Giacomo  22:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Here's a link to the thread I refer to: [89]. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, yes, yes, we know all about the thread, but my chief antagonists think that a person who brings such a thread to ANI is doing nothing but shopping for trouble and drama. Your point is rather shooting those who want to ban me rather than helping them.  Giacomo  09:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, it's true Giacomo & I have slightly bumbed heads, but that was 'cuz of my being nosey & attempting humour at the wrong times (while butting into his problems). It's very rare that I'll support a community ban for any editor, unless blatent sock-puppetry is evident. Some may say I'm thick skinned or thick headed, but for the moment I shall not support exile. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I have a complex solution, which automatically rules it out of serious consideration, but I'll say it anyway. Everyone agrees that Giano does good content work. Why should interpersonal disputes (unrelated to the content) result in the forfeiting of his content work? So I say simply impose a firm civility restriction: any admin will be empowered to block him for any comment, but only for the set duration of 12 hours per block. If Giano continues to be uncivil, he'll simply go through an unlimited number of those short blocks (perhaps that sounds like a pain, but it would actually involve less drama than the current situation). Everyking (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose - (1) Giano has been doing content work off and on i.e. still an active content contributor. (2) He had the courage to suggest events needed further examining in this recent chain of dust-ups. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Object to the question. WP:AN or ANI are the wrong places for this proposal. Either do an RfCU or take it to the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Weak Support - Exiling editors is very extreme, and he's worked a lot for this website, but I've seen his attitude a number of times, and it stinks. In the past, a lot of time has been wasted discussing what should be done about him. I'm sure people have better things to discuss by now. Orphan Wiki 10:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support - I seen enough here. Walking the blues (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, still support his content contributions and his willingness to be Wikipedia's conscience from time to time. Yes, he does need to do it with more civility. Not sufficient for a ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support: He has gotten away with being uncivil. I've noticed on ANI that there is editors that are treated differently if plenty of people defend them, no matter how many rules that they broke. A recent thing that I saw was admins defending someone who cussed at others with the reason that if they don't call the person a cuss word, it's alright despite cussing breaking WP:CIVIL. How can someone honestly think that he is good for the project when he is rude to anyone that disagrees with him? He even tried to delete this thread with an edit summary that said that the starter of it was a troll. I don't care how many articles he created, if he breaks the civility policy constantly, he should be blocked. Joe Chill (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Banning Giano from the site is a horrible way to deal with issues in project space.--Chaser (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Wait a week? A week ago-ish we had a general discussion on AN on community ban proposal policy, focused on discussion duration but covering a number of other related topics. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#General discussion - community ban discussion durations Carcharoth proposed that we put in a one-week cooldown period between a precipitating ANI incident and a ban proposal. It was moderately supported and not that I see opposed, but not established firmly as a policy or best practice. I feel somewhat guilty for having pointed the ANI discussion towards doing a ban here and not having simultaneously brought this issue up before this ban was filed. However, that said; I am somewhat concerned that this is an overly early time and that people are in an overly confrontational mood, and that this discussion is trending towards more heat than light. So - question for those viewing. Would there be objections to closing this and reopening it a week from now? In a related issue, would anyone terribly object if a more neutral party drafted the proposal next time, assuming we do close this one? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oh let them get on with it.  Giacomo  00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) A week, a month, it won't make a blind bit of difference. I'll repost it whenever, unless or until there is an amazing turnaround in Giano's behaviour, or in the admin corp's general dynamic toward him, or until arbcom accepts or declines the case outlined at ANI, meaning that we at least get some institutional recognition of the situation, for future reference. MickMacNee (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You seem to be engaging in a crusade. Wikipedia isn't the place for battles, even more so for crusades. You seem to be hugely concerned that a block was overturned – which de-escalated the drama – and yet you tell us that you will forum shop for a sanction, creating more drama. Wikipedia would be better off if you'd just let it drop. I know you won't put any weight on my advice, as a mere "content contributor", but there must be someone whose advice you can listen to. --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You've got me confused with someone else, I have no prejudices about content contributors or non-content contributors, I only have prejudice toward vested contributors. And you seem to be mis-remembering quite a lot of this latest incident, because there was no drama while the block stood, and there was actually a de-escalation after it was placed, because it was valid, and because it was Giano who was bringing disruption to that situation with his repeated attacks and direct provocation of an admin even, although as we see above, you apparently think it was part of exposing The Truth so it was OK. The drama only occured when it was removed unilateraly, meaning that Giano just carried on where he left off, and the de-facto situation of Giano being a special class of editor as regards enforcement remained in place. And as always, it's just a rich irony to be accused of crusading when the subject you are tying to highlight is Giano and his effect on the pedia, this is a happy club several editors and admins have found themselves in. Anyway, the real reason I do not put any weight on your advice has nothing to do with Giano at all, it is because you seem to generally not accept the basic concept that it is not OK to throw out the personal attacks, irrespective of how right you believe you are, in any situation. MickMacNee (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You can talk all you want Mick but the fact remains that Giano became RAN's champion. You cannot ban a champion because the champion said an impolitic word to the perpetrator of such emotional violence on that poor contributor. Either he planned it or not TT descended like a wiki maelstrom on that poor soul RAN. Giano screamed murder and now you want to ban Giano. Hello? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You mean the situation with TT and RAN that had already been raised many times, and was already being dealt with? The situation that, despite Giano getting involved, only actually saw one person blocked for being disruptive, namely Giano, even now. The situation where the people 'riding to the rescue of RAN' didn't even have the first clue what the outcome of the last similar situation was? (it was no blocks, no censure for harassment, and seemingly no lessons learnt about what is and is not bullying, and most destrucitve of all for this fantasy narrative presumably, the 'victim' being politely urged to get his content issues fixed). The situation where even RAN rejected some of Giano's proposed 'solutions' as being innappropriate? The situation where Giano came up with all sorts of decrees and missives and promises to right this and expose that, yet has still not done anything of the sort, yet again. This fantasy account of Giano nobly riding to the rescue of RAN, and nobly flinging the personal attacks at the evil TT because that was all he could do to help within our awful regime where we apparently have no other recognised mechanism of dispute resolution, is frankly a load of rubbish. It's beyond rubbish. MickMacNee (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, the wheels were turning slowly even before Giano intervened. But Giano's involvement sped things up considerably and raised the profile of the issue while shedding more daylight on the underlying issues. Giano became the champion of a beleaguered editor. That's a fact and the record speaks for itself. The rest that you are mentioning are just trivial details. I know how demoralised I felt during TT's reign of psychological error. Giano's intervention turned the tide for me. In fact during my almost four and a half years here I never saw such a massive upheaval of an editor's work perpetrated by another editor. It was a really terrifying wiki-experience on an almost epic scale. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I know how demoralised I felt during TT's reign of psychological error [sic] – can you hear yourself? Do you have any sense of proportion Doctor? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yes I do. I mentioned psychological error because I find that it is psychologically erroneous to attack a fellow editor this way making RAN feel under sustained attack and the admins blocking him because you started soliciting his punishment. On top of that the sockpuppets also descended on RAN, while the admin reaction intially was hostile to him. I never saw such maltreament of a fellow editor before in Wikipedia and I felt terrified imagining the stress RAN was under and demoralised because at first I did not know how to help RAN while the system was in such complete dissarray with the socks running amok and everything else happening at the same time to RAN. I specifically avoided using the term psychological terror but obviously you did not get the point because you still link to inappropriate topics as is your custom when you talk to me it seems. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Ah right, so you, like Giano, had a prior reason for wishing ill on TT in this case. That's good to know, and as they say, the devil is in the detail. It's amazing what people are prepared to dismiss as trivia when they have a horse in the race. MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Very clevah Mick. Blame the victim for the terror instilled by the wiki-inquisitor. Very clevah. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Quite frankly if I had to give it a name, I would call the proposal to ban Giano, an Indecent Proposal. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And it seems the appropriate thing here is to wait a week and then mebbe someone neutral will open a similar discussion about MickMacNee. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) For what offence? If I'm getting preferential treatment from admins, or if people are ignoring when I go on 24 hour campaign to malign other editors by calling them harassing bullying odious people, based on my personal belief they've done wrong, it's news to me. You go and try and hunt down anything you like in my history. You could even suggest I be topic banned from talking about Giano, I would love that, because the only time that's ever happened to me in my time here, the guy in question was perma-banned not 6 months later, for being the person I had correctly been describing him as all along. I'd gladly try for 2 for 2 on that score. MickMacNee (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well, Prodego's indef rationale was "attitude not compatible with this project", which aligns well with my take on you. Jack Merridew 03:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It didn't align with many others though, which is rather the point, and one I'm happy about. MickMacNee (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) WP:CCC ;) Jack Merridew 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (unindent) A few things are pretty clear. Giano will continue to commit significant civility violations until and unless something is done. Nothing will be done here or at another meta-forum as things now stand because there are enough among the noticeboards' armchair quarterbacks who either don't believe in enforcing civility, or who like the drama of accusing the accuser, to scuttle the overwhelming consensus usually needed for a community ban. But something will be done eventually. There are only two reasonable likely outcomes. One is that eventually a community ban or an Arbcom action leads to a ban. The other is that someone blocks Giano for a while and Giano decides either to moderate his abusiveness, or leaves on his own because he won't agree to it. Unblocking not only prolongs the problem, it removes the second option and makes the ban more likely because it incites Giano to keep doing it. If he thinks he can get away with it because people support it and thrwart attempts to deal with it, he'll keep testing everyone's patience until they have none left.Ideally we could give Giano an ultimatum: if you want to continue editing, shape up. I don't think this was the right time for this proposal, but it's pretty obvious that we have a civility policy, that Giano is breaking it in a disruptive way, and that despite some sputters and coughs the policy does get enforced. Plenty of long-term editors are now indefinitely blocked or banned on that account. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Sure. From your point of view this seems logical, according to the parameters that you defined. But many other parameters you have missed. So I find your analysis seriously flawed because it starts from incomplete boundary conditions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It starts from the premises that: (1) we have a civility policy we will enforce, (2) Giano violates and will continue violating it unless something changes, and (3) longevity and productivity are not a free pass to be uncivil here. These are so obvious I see no point discussing them here or entertaining arguments otherwise. The only weak part, as far as I can tell, is my speculation that something will change, and exactly what it is that will change. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) But what about the emotional violence perpetrated by the wiki-inquisitor? Victim issues etc? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) If we stick to blocks and bans being solely for purposes of avoiding future disruption so that we can keep the project humming along, I don't see how those questions apply. What are you thinking there? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What I am thinking is that blocks and bans based on incomplete criteria are both unjust and ineffective. Banning Giano, for example, but leaving the inquisitor untouched will not address the underlying problem of emotional violence that any inquisition brings and will send exactly the wrong message to the victims of the inquisitorial rigour. The solution is to systemically prevent inquisitions not to kill the messenger of injustice. If the system prevented such outbreaks of injustice there would be no need for Giano to cry foul. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Why don't you start a discussion about punishment to "the inquisitor" instead of arguing that whatever Giano (or anyone else) does is justified because of who he is attacking? A system of justice doesn't work if punishment is meted out solely on the basis of the person's intent (let's not even debate who's definition of righteousness you are demanding we all follow). They are two separate points and I find it completely ridiculous to claim that individual editors should or should not be punished just because of their views. Note that in Giano's discussion, numerous editors shared his view about "the inquisitor" and nobody is arguing about them sans Giano. Is it your view that anyone who would support his view (including, let's say, yourself) is liable to being driven off like he is? Is it your view that if Giano had acted the exact same way but in fact was arguing against "the inquisitor", you would argue differently? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Screw it. I should know better. Giano shouldn't be blocked because there's enough admin here who support his conduct no matter what because of his views and they will unblock him in a second. It's a waste of time to do so. The cow has already left the barn, the community has spoken, let's move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) That was fast. What happened? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I read enough of your arguments to realize I don't care to engage you. I'd rather look at it from the practical perspective that, similar to the various attempts to clean up the unreferenced BLPs, Category:Unreferenced BLPs from June 2007 is still full of plenty of articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I share your opinion that there are far more productive things to do here than arguing at length on noticeboards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not therapy. If Giano is not in control of his reactions then he needs to be blocked immediately. You can't have it both ways.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Wikidemon, the premises you put forth are seriously flawed. (1) we have a civility policy we will enforce - firstly, the policy itself is flawed, open to gaming by editors who want to skew content towards their own POV (see WP:CPUSH for a discussion); secondly, its enforcement is both selective and subjective - reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes an uncivil comment, and real-world community standards differ from place to place. You might see WP:CIVIL as an unambiguous asset, but that view is not universal. Further, many people believe that context is critical in discussing civility issues, and judgment and discretion are essential for just decisions to be made. To offer a real-world analogy, if I called some random person an asshole on the street, the police would view that as using offensive language (in my country, at least). If that person were in the process of mugging an old lady, and I called him an asshole to distract him from beating his victim, would the police be looking to charge me? I think not. The context of my action would both explain and excuse (if not justify) my action. You wish to divorce Giano's actions from the treatment of RAN (which included incorrect blocking of RAN, fyi, and there is serious examination of Fastily's admin actions at ANI now, so please don't suggest that only Giano recieved any sanction); I, for one, will not ignore the surrounding circumstances in looking at Giano's behaviour. (2) Giano violates and will continue to violate it unless something changes - this is an assertion and a prediction, not a statement of fact. There is clearly disagreement in the current circumstances as to whether Giano violated the civility policy. When you advance an argument that treats opinion as if it were fact, your argument is substantially weakened, potentially to the extent of being fatally flawed. As for your argument about blocks and bans being solely for purposes of avoiding future disruption, again we have a problem, concerning what constitutes the greater disruption. It is my view that disruption of content development by civil-POV pushing is a more significant and substantial disruption than minor and arguable incivilities, yet which gets more attention? Similarly, Giano's telling truth to power and calling a spade a spade in my view reduces long-term disruption by maintaining accountability, and so I don't accept that a ban on Giano would lead to a net reduction of future disruption. I realise others may disagree with my assessment of Giano as a net asset to the project, and I hope you can recognise that your reasoning is not the only reasonable approach to these questions. EdChem (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Civility, being one of the WP:5P, is a safe assumption. Maintaining a collegial approach so that we can create an encyclopedia together is a fundamental tenet. I too believe that RAN's block was improper and that TT's actions were incorrect. I do not need to call anybody's names or impugn anybody's motives to prove that point. When someone flies off the handle, the question isn't what event precipitated the inappropriate reaction but that the reaction was inappropriate. There is no legitimate disagreement as to whether Giano was uncivil, it's safe to dismiss that out of hand. There is no fatal flaw, we don't need to entertain preposterous positions. Disruption is stuff that interferes with editing process, it makes no sense to redefine it to include other things that follow process but yield bad content. We have content policies and guidelines for reasonable editors to follow and discuss in process of making content contributions. We have behavioral policies and guidelines to deal with break-downs. I can call a spade a spade without also saying they're a liar or an asshole. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You would be normally completely right, but in an ideal wiki-society and under ideal rules. Unfortunately the current version of our wiki-society is far from ideal. On one hand we have an editor who in the past not only used the word "odious" but actually enshrined it in policy and on the other another editor who created a sustained inquisitorial tsunami against a single editor with a multitude of socks at the tail of the inquisitor living in a kind of opportunistic parasitic symbiosis with said editor while at the same time the enforcers of wiki-law blamed the victim in the beginning. This does not seem, at least to me, like an ideal wiki-society. But it does look, at least to me, like a small, but odious and odorous, (because of all the socks you understand), wiki-apocalypse. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) So can I, and I have certainly never referred to anyone as an "asshole."  Giacomo  16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I asked Giano to account for his reasons for raising his recent issues on ANI rather than pursuing dispute resolution. You may read and evaluate his responses for yourself. Having read them, it is my opinion that the solution to this problem is that Giano be banned from the Wikipedia namespace, with the exception of dispute resolution and perhaps featured article processed. This narrowly failed to pass at the IRC arbitration case, and I still consider it to be an effective solution. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I would also support this in principle, since it would work if adhered to. Whether or not it would lead to Wikilawyering and huge arguments about exactly what was permitted and prohibited, however, is quite another matter. Giano's comment below specifically makes me concerned that this would not be an effective way of preventing disruption. (Incidentally, I believe that the convention with namespace-bans is that they don't have to be accepted by their subject.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 09:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Then you had better ban me now. No way will I ever accept it. I will continue to expose anyone who bullies, intimidates or harrsses another editor right up to the moment I am banned. I suggest you attend to the real problems of this site Stifle. There is a real reluctance to address the true problem which is pile-on bullying, and I find that very odd.  Giacomo  09:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Giano, Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. We don't do exposés. We have several accepted ways of calling users to account for their actions, with which I am sure you are conversant. Posting ANI threads which cause pile-on drama is not one of them; filing requests for comment/mediation/arbitration are three, and under this proposal you would remain free to do any of them. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Stifle, I think you are deluded.  Giacomo  10:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You're welcome to that opinion. I ask that no administrator treat it as a personal attack or in any way actionable or blockable. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you so much Stifle, for allowing me to have a personal thought. Doubtless that is something else you and your frieds will soon see changed.  Giacomo  10:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I do not wish to deny anyone thoughts, opinions, or indeed the right to call other people on their misbehaviour. I am just desirous that it be done through proper channels, which is something that it seems to me you are not willing to do. This seeming unwillingness is causing unnecessary drama and wasting time of others, and I am seeking the least-resistance path to change that. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Can you please tell us all where one is supposed to report an incident of an admin abusing rollback privileges? You suggest RFC or DR? Can one then ask why Giano was not afforded the same process as you suggest he take when he misused rollback? I fail to see why ANI is not the place to report an incident of adminstrator abuse of tools. Not directed at you personally Stifle, but the hypocrisy on Wikipedia is absolutely astounding. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Rollback flag != admin flag. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I see nothing wrong with Giano's response to you Stifle. In fact his responses are spot on, especially pointing out the hypocrisy of an admin abusing rollback and, seemingly, nothing being done about it. Shoot the offender, not the messenger. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Neither do I. I was merely hoping to ensure that no other admin would find the comment uncivil and take action that would exacerbate the issue. As for the matter of nothing being done about an admin allegedly abusing rollback, that would be because, as I continue to state, the venue that Giano chose to do the pointing-out was incorrect — dispute resolution would have the power to take action against him; ANI has only the power to generate drama. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I am talking specifically about his responses on his talk page in relation to your posting there, by the way. If you feel that ANI only has the power to generate drama, then might I suggest that you instead try to get rid of ANI completely, as it seems ANI isn't worth it. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) That isn't a bad idea. Splitting ANI into smaller boards with specific purposes, and forcing editors to use other processes, such as those mentioned by Stifle could be worth considering. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee For how much longer are we to have to watch MickMcNee and Treasury Tag racing up and down the thread hectoring anyone who opposes their ideas? While it's pretty obvious that they are concerned the proposal won't stand alone - some people may find him and Treasury Tag just a trifle intimidating - or is this their intent?  Giacomo  10:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I have not "hectored" anybody for opposing a ban on Giano. They are, of course, entitled to that view, and they are probably right-minded, no matter what Mick says! My interjections have been limited to defending my own honour from those who have, among other things, accused me of running a "reign of psychological terror" – for how long are we going to watch Giano desperately attempting to get this thread closed after just twelve hours? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 10:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You are forgetting, that have said this was a very bad idea and removing it as needless drama designed to take the spotlight of the real issues here, it was me who gave in to the edit war and re-instated it, and what a good idea it has turned out to be after all. Watching you and MickMacnee has been most enlightening.  Giacomo  11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) this is the only reason you self-reverted, which is a dynamic which will come out at arbitration, that and the realisation that there are thankfully still some bright line offences that you have not managed to gain immunity from blocking for yet. Still, as we see, the PA thrown in was allowed to pass by, into the night, like a hundred or so before it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) TreasuryTag and MickMacNee have the right to reply to comments here, and I don't really see their conduct as aggressive or intimidating, at least they're managing to do it without insulting anyone, hmm? - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)(edit conflict)I would say the proposal for a community ban should be closed as very unlikely to achieve consensus, and MickMacNee should read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) In the immortal words of RAN, Stifle... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 11:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I didn't say it was a Wikipedia approved policy; I just said he should read it. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I know, my tongue was half-way into my cheek! :) ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well FWIW, I don't think this would be the est time to be closing this proposal. It's still active, hasn't even been open for a day, and actually seems to me to be slightly more productive than the previous threads (after the one opened by Giano, that is). - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I would say for as long as people support your theory that the entire policy of no personal attacks was written simply to curtail your freedom of expression as you go about fighting the good fight, and as long as people continue to pretend that it is not ironic in the extreme in that case, that evidently you are the only person on Wikipedia who is given the lattitude and indulgence to willfully and freely ignore it. MickMacNee (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks to all those saying the nice things and who don't think I am the devil personified. However, entertaining as the McNee/Treasury Tag performing duo are, it's too nice outside to stay in and watch it, so I'm off to watch the cricket instead, I'll probably look in later and see how they are getting on, Ciao.  Giacomo  12:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Just for the record, though I'm sure you know this, Mick and I are not a "duo" – we have (if I recall correctly) never corresponded either on user-talk pages or offsite. I did not know he was going to propose a community ban until I saw it in my watchlist. Any accusations to the contrary cannot have any basis in reality. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 'Devil personified' is your spin on it. What I actually said is you were an editor who frequently attacks others, apparently has extraordinary leeway to do so, and is not going to stop anytime soon because he does not accept our basic rules. And I don't see anyone disagreeing with me, even on the oppose side, although obviously you are never going to see that as a disturbing sign. Infact you revel it actually. It's all part of the anti-hero cult that's been built up around you. Which is why the real issue is going to go the forum I always intended, the forum who has the responsibility to ignore suich insane cultishness, and weigh a person's actions against our actual rules, for the benefit of the actual community, the one that wrote the rules in the first place. If any of the opposers here want to start rewriting our rules to reflect their opinions, I wait with baited breath. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What have you baited your breath with? I wait with bated breath to find out. If you always intended to go to another forum, why did you choose to create needless drama here? DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It's been said about a dozen times here, but if you missed all those, go and look at the ANI arbitration thread. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Hopefully for as long as free expression is permitted - I do find it extremely distasteful in having people blocked or otherwise sanctioned because their passion for their beliefs may lead them to make vexatious commentary, for which they are conveniently silenced and the cause ignored. I happen to disagree with TT and MNN (and their selective, to me, memories) but the principle is more important than my opinion. I suspect you, Giacomo, may come to understand that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Simple question, requesting a simple answer Why did Giano report the alleged rollback abuse by Fastily, and the alleged harassment of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), to ANI, rather than raising dispute resolution requests? Stifle (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I have already explained to you why Stifle, at length, on my page [90]. If you don't like the answer that canot be helped, but it has been answered.  Giacomo  11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Most editors come to ANI if there is a problem with an Admin, particularly an Admin with a history of ignoring attempts to communicate. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) He rushed to ANI in the case of RAN because he had of course uncovered The Truth, and had presumably missed the two or more times the TT-RAN interaction had already been raised at the board, and, having mysteriously missed the outcome of the last time someone tried to label mass-tagging as harassment, had some idea that there was going to be new case law set, presumably. I think we can see how well that has gone, for all parties, as a method of DR. And in the case of Fastily, it's apparently because he just doesn't do official processes, something about 'not being a Kangaroo', and he has this odd idea due to him being the victim of admin abuse in the past, that the ANI board has the moral duty to act, forthwith, by summary block, on any admin he ever finds abusing his tools, having been found guilty of such an offence in the court of Giano. MickMacNee (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) @Duncan: So informing more people about the problem (which an ANI report does) is more helpful than fixing the problem (which a DR would have done)? (I'm not trying to be smart-assed; I'm genuinely trying to get to the bottom of the reasoning behind Giano's choice to list these on ANI.) Stifle (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Would DR have fixed it? What exactly did you have in mind - an RfCU (which as we all know would never create any kind of drama at all, he said, his voice silky with sarcasm)? DuncanHill (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Speaking strictly in the theoretical realm, an RFAR could well have resulted in Fastily's use of his rollback rights being restricted on pain of desysopping, and an RFC could have established the boundaries for resolving the issues with Richard Arthur Norton's image uploads. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Speaking strictly, RfAR would have required previous attempts at DR, and both RfAr and RfC/U are both eminently capable of producing at leaast as much drama as a thread on ANI. Still, if you feel that straight to RfAR is the way to go with unresponsive admins I'll certainly bear that in mind for the future. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) There were previous attempts at DR in this case, weren't there? Or am I getting muddled? - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Of a sort - certainly people had tried talking to the admin on several occasions. I'm just puzzled as to why any admin would want to hide away discussion of a sub-optimal admin. I'd have thought that admins would want to see the highest standards from their colleagues, and that admins inherent respect for and trust in the community (as evidenced by choosing to go through RfAd) would make them pleased to involve the community in such discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Stifle, why are you contributing to the drama which you say yourself should be avoided? You asked the question to Giano on his talk page, and he has already answered your question there. There is really nothing to get to the bottom of in that regard. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) He's answered in respect of Fastily (although perhaps dodged the follow-up questions), but has not done so in respect of RAN. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Do we have to get your permission now to post at AN or ANI, Stifle? DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Not sure what exactly you're referring to, but in the unlikely event that that message wasn't sarcasm, obviously not. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahya Alavi fard

A call needs to be made here. I normally close these no consensus with leave to speedy renominate but I do not feel comfortable doing that with a BLP with all its sources in Persian and which was deleted on a sister project. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Closed as delete, invoking IAR if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if this were an article on a Pokemon I would have had no problem punching "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If no one contests the deletion, should it not just be treated as an expired prod? (I haven't seen the article, I don't actually know if it was prod-able). Rami R 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much my rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahya Alavi fard

A call needs to be made here. I normally close these no consensus with leave to speedy renominate but I do not feel comfortable doing that with a BLP with all its sources in Persian and which was deleted on a sister project. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Closed as delete, invoking IAR if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if this were an article on a Pokemon I would have had no problem punching "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If no one contests the deletion, should it not just be treated as an expired prod? (I haven't seen the article, I don't actually know if it was prod-able). Rami R 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much my rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

81.137.221.153

This anonymous IP has vandalized Wikipedia once more time after it was finally warned. Block it. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, though vandalism should usually be reported to WP:AIV. In this case, the IP has made one edit since their final warning. I'll keep an eye on them (and report them to WP:AIV if they vandalise again). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please" wouldn't have gone amiss, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost 17k images waiting for deletion

There has been a major upsurge in files moved to Commons since the beginning of this month, mostly due to one user moving hundreds of images a day (likely with a script or AWB). Admin help is needed to delete the local redundant copies and bring the levels back to their normal, reasonable level.

• Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons - currently 7 files
• Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons - currently 4 files
  

The usual suspects are already on it, but again, there are a ton. Any help would be appreciated. I have previously posted about this at WT:IM, and there is a small discussion happening there. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I already took care of about 80 or so today. I also want to take the time for some to look at User:Chzz/dsc‎, which contains about 2300 generically-titled images that need to be renamed and/or moved to Commons (or otherwise need to be deleted, as I am finding out); these images all begin with the prefix "DSC" – a common prefix used in filenames for Sony digital cameras. I've been trying to chip away at the long list, trying to turn that list into one big "sea of red". I've placed some guidelines for both admins and non-admins as to what to do with those, if anyone wants to help out with that long list. –MuZemike 23:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

close TfD

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but can an administrator close the TfD for Harvcol and Harvcolnb at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 4. There is a clear consensus. Thank you. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another ban proposal

The result of this discussion is no consensus. This discussion is closed because it serves no further purpose at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

This is pissing me off having to watch all these pointless arguments on here and ANI. Therefore I propose that Giano, MickMackNee and Treasury Tag all be banned from posting to AN or ANI for at least a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Did you notify all the editors concerned? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (Hint: answer = no.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I figured they'd see it when they came back here to bicker with each other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) fishfood.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) catfood. Rohedin TALK 19:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose bans for myself, Mick and Giano—this is not the only issue on which I edit ANI. If anybody has a problem with specific edits of mine here, they are (as always) welcome to raise it with me. However, the principle that editors are allowed to propose community bans (yes, you may consider it "pointless" but that's scarcely objective) and the principle that editors are allowed to defend themselves from accusations are both well established. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC) support but instead of posting how about "starting threads about each other" for a month. Enough is enough. Giano is calling a spade a spade. Sorry that he's makeing you all look foolish....--White Shadows you're breaking up 19:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I would not oppose a ban on starting or editing threads about each other, FWIW. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 19:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well if we're just going with commenting on each other on AN and ANI (rather than a total ban from the boards), I propose we make it indefinite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose indefinite. Support up to four months. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support', I also support White Shadows proposal too. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support to White Shadows proposal. Rohedin TALK 19:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, cannot quite bring myslelf (for one reaon only) to support Striking and changing to support as it now included needless dramaseeking arb cases. However, anyone like to take a look at this [91][92] it does rather show a cartain double standard here.  Giacomo  19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oh yeah that's one big typo of your's TT. I understand Giacomo but this has gone on far enough. That's why I made that counter suggestion.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And the repeated hounding on my talkpage after it was clear I didn't want to engage with him? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) But Treasure, it's your favourite subject, I thought you wopuld be thrilled. I'm distraught.  Giacomo  20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Stop it the both of you.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support ban on starting or editing threads about each other. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Is this going to include starting and commenting on each other in Arb cases?  Giacomo  20:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yes it would.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) No it wouldn't. Not as you phrased it, not as I interpreted it when supporting, and I seriously doubt that any admin would block for participation in an Arb case. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) pardon me I meant to say starting Arbcom Cases as that would just be a loophole for these sanctions.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Well, my support does not extend to your amendment. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support. Clearly, not pissing off Mitchell is the uppermost concern here. Barring the ban proposal, I've never started an AN/I thread about Giano, nor he about me, so God knows what White Shadow is on about. If you want to restrict thread starting to people who are previously involved, well, good luck with that. It's been going great these past few years. Like I said, it's arbcom that needs to look at this dynamic, and it's arbcom where I'll be going next. MickMacNee (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) That thread over at ANI says otherwise....--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Jesus christ. Fine. read it as "Apart from when I started one ANI SUB-section, and one AN thread, about the same subject...". Satisfied now? MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Mick, I'm not sure that's wise, the Arbs will also want to look at Treasure, won't they, and er... of course you! I do wonder....  Giacomo  20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Holy Crap. Well, I'll just have to take any admin that tries to ban me from filing a case about you, to arbitration first. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support: This is not a typo FinalRapture - † ☪ 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And [93][94][95] this is not constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Pointless to single out this individual case. Or are we going to expand the ban to include Giano and Fastily not starting topics about each other as well as TT and RAN? I'm in agreement that ArbCom is going to get involved sooner rather than later, and judging by the nonsense at VPR, it is going to happen sooner. There are a lot of parties that simply need to back away from each other, go to their corners and just write articles for a while. Resolute 20:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC) LOL. Rohedin TALK 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Double LOL! The arbs will likely reject the case as a massive waste of time. If not, no way will i be going back to article writing until Giano is vindicated. All it takes on the admins board for aggressors to get there way is for good natured editors to stay out of it. Hopefully things are better on the arb board but i wont take the chance might even have to curtail my world cup viewing! Grrrr! If there one silver lining to these threads its that so many good editors have came out to support someone whos being attacked for defending a quallity editor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Have you ever actually been involved in an arbitration case? It's a lot different to a mash up at AN, mainly in the way that people actually have to provide evidence for their arguments, or at least show how their perception/recollection of events at least has some grounding in reality. And ultimately, opinions like 'it's ok to personally attack someone if you are defending another editor', are simply ignored, as prima facie bollocks. Arbs will take advisement from people who can actually frame an argument in policy, but ultimately, there were elected on the basis that they already know it, so the case won't have to bother itself as to what various people have tried to claim is and is not permitted, behaviour wise, above. I think that for those people who think Giano is a net assett, they will be praying that the case is not accepted, as it's frankly the only way he will come out of it the same old Giano. Which is kind of the point. If they don't like it, they really need to start changing some fundemental policies of this site, rather than just revelling in their apparent need to be seen to be righteous rebels, fighting The Man. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I think you are correct, Feyd, that ArbCom won't touch a Giano case, but they have much stronger motivation for avoiding it than just it being a time sink. EdChem (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Such as? And arbcom cares not for time-sinks, it's their stock in trade. It is the only way that disputes which have been allowed to go this far, can be properly examined. MickMacNee (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) MMN, if you follow ArbCom cases and incidents, then you should know what I'm talking about. If you don't, then I suggest you don't know enough to launch a reasonable case relating to Giano. Perhaps you could do everyone a favour and stop trying to make a bigger mess than already exists. EdChem (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I do, and I honestly don't. And before you start calling it 'doing people a favour', why don't you have a look around and see just how many editors aren't as happy about the Giano situation as you seem to be. Not enough for a community ban it seems, but it's enough. MickMacNee (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Comment it appears that there is unannimous support for HJ's sanctions (with my tweaked bit) so can an admin please make it oficial?--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) After the thread has been open for an hour? Don't be ridiculous. EdChem (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, I must agree with my learned friend on this point. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, for the record... if another tagging spree happens, any editor should be able to bring it to the community's notice, and that includes MMN and TT if Giano went on a deletion nomination rampage, and vice versa. EdChem (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oh I forgot. Things here take days.....--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) This current ban proposal could've waited until the other ban proposal runs its course (as both are related). GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support as proposed. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Incidently, I would also support a complete interaction ban on all parties for at least the same duration. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose Readers sensibilities are important, but not so much as the ability to bring up matters of concern. Looking away from the latest bunfight is commendable - but not a habit I indulge in, obviously - but looking away from issues of alleged misbehaviour is not. Not only does Giacomo have pertinent things to say about the other parties, but they also have pertinent things to say about Giacomo (for me, it is issues about degrees of pertinence). I am against constraints upon good faith editors bringing forth issues in the hope that they may be resolved (regardless of the history). There are real issues here, so look away if you must but don't stop it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Support Spevw (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose, established blokes must not be barred from these pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC) established doesn't give you license to piss all over the project.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) support but with the exception that if someone else starts a thread directly about them they can respond to that thread only.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I would hope so too frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Wikipedia needs Giano, and not only for the quantity and quality of his content contributions. WP need him to stand up to abusive admins, corrupt arbs and the self-appointed politeness police, who selectively enforce civility through bullying. It even needs him to speak up to co-founders who regard themselves as sole-founders and fancy themselves constitutional monarchs while acting as absolute monarchs. It needs him to speak up for the powerless and speak the truth to the powerful...something he's been doing since long before it became popular and none do more ably or credibly. To ban Giacomo would be to ban what Wikipedia has left of a good conscious.R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC) We were not gonig to ban him, just ban him an TT from starting threads about each other. FWIW, I admire Giano's effort to bring light on the admin abuse situation and call a spade a spade.--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC) As is oft said on here banned is banned, and I still oppose.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sure Giano and WP will survive if the three of them are banned from posting to a noticeboard for a while- maybe it'll encourage Giano to go back to writing the featured articles he does so brilliantly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Quite why you think I'm a prolific ANI thread starter is beyond me, but the few I do start, it's when I shock horror need an admin to perform some perfunctory task using their tools. I'm a three year veteran, I know full well when an AN/I posting is a waste of time and when it isn't, so if this 'ban' passes, you are my goto man for those few times I might need someone to get shit done for me during the ban period, or whoever you want to pass me onto. Or are you so 'pissed off' at the sight of one ban discussion here that you want to deny me this basic right? MickMacNee (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support. A most sensible idea, as proposed by User:HJ Mitchell. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Quelle suprise...et tu Cirt...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Not sure how this comment is helpful at all. -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support Yes, enough is enough. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose (am I allowed to do that as a non-admin?). I enjoy drama at ANI, and these characters are always good at stirring it up. In all seriousness, I think that being able to report perceived incidents in good faith is far more important than trying to limit the drama on that board. As LessHeard vanU says, "Looking away from the latest bunfight is commendable... but looking away from issues of alleged misbehaviour is not". Buddy431 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [A]m I allowed to do that as a non-admin? Yes, as far as I'm concerned. We tend to oppose semi-protection here so that non-registered users can still post, so a registered editor with a well thought-out comment should be very much allowed. Disclaimer: I am not an admin, but I watched ANI last night on TV and I think I got the gist of it... TFOWRidle vapourings 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) "Watching" ANI only counts as "getting the gist" if you're also being whipped like a mule, and threatened by random people at your front door while watching it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Support If an important incident arises which simply must be brought to AN or ANI, these editors would easily be able to find someone to post their concern (possibly by linking to a section on an editor's talk page). We have to draw this nonsense to a close and a break is a very sensible way to achieve it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC) It depends what you define as important. If I see a BLP issue or copyvio violation on my watchlist, I'm really not going to bother my arse about how to raise attention to that while being 'banned' from ANI, I'm certainly not going to fuck about linking to sections on my talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Reluctant oppose, per LessHeard vanU. Preventing any user from posting here should be our last resort. The pains in the neck here ("TPINH") are far more tolerable than the various vandals and trolls that crop up and result in temporary semi'ing here. We all need to consider how to help this situation - it's not going away, and pushing it to talk pages, email and elsewhere hasn't worked in the past. TPINH also need to take on board that the community is reaching the end of its tether - find better ways to deal with this. I might be averse to topic bans at ANI/AN but I am certainly not averse to blocks where appropriate. TFOWRidle vapourings 09:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Strong support particularly if you change "month" to "century" --B (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose. While it'd be welcome if these editors chose to voluntarily refrain from starting more threads on each other reasonably likely to directly involve each other in some way, I'm not convinced a community ban would help matters, particularly if it also applies to any ArbCom case that might be opened. Yes, yes, drama, futility, whatever... at least we've got it out in the open. Shimeru (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC) For clarity can I just point out (that while this motion bothers me not one jot either way) as far as I know, the only thread I have ever started concerning either of them , is the sub-thread "Mick Mcnee" immediatly above. I think they just fell into the "bullying thread" by default - I can't rememeber what it was called (It was Gross Harrassment of User:Richard Arthur Norton) but certanly not after one of them - it was far more general.  Giacomo  20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Noted and so amended. But really, the three of you (and likely some others not mentioned in this motion) are going to choose either to post or to refrain. What's a ban going to do? Make you think twice? Maybe. Sweep problems under the rug? Maybe. I'm inclined to think it'll cause rather than solve problems, though. If we're going to discuss a ban, let's discuss a clear one, at least. Shimeru (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How is there no consensus? there is a 2/3's majority in favor of a ban. I don't see any compelling oppose arguments that site a larger policy which would indicate a larger consensus against sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This was cloed too early. Can we please re-open it?--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 10:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus and no compelling arguments either way, just increasing acrimony and wasted time. DuncanHill (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, 2/3's majority in the abscence of larger conscensus from cited policies indicates support for the measure. There was obviously on-going discussion and one with support. Shutting it down will only create more drama.--Crossmr (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the opposes were at least as compelling as the supports - but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that there was anything like consensus either way or any prospect of one developing. Try an RfC/U if you are still unhappy with the various editors the thread was aimed at. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to ban them from AN(I)? I mean they're like The Three Stooges, where else am I going to get a laugh.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of AN(I) is not to get a quick laugh or giggle. Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica for that. Rohedin ^TALK 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes, You can get a laugh from ED, but the biggest laugh is from something that isnt trying to be funny (For example, Three Stooges continously niggling and trying to get each other sanctioned)   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How would we know when the discussion was knee-capped? We were already having a discussion, I'm not going to go out and start another one in the RfC wasteland so it can be ignored further. Unless you've got a discussion breaking policy, stopping it prematurely serves no one.--Crossmr (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All jokes aside, this was closed far to early (typical of Jehochman's gung-ho nature). If he bothered to read it he would see all 3 parties (jokingly or not) supported the sanction of not starting threads about each other. Personally I feel that any prevention is better than no prevention at all but of course when Jehochman enters the room, common sense flies out.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Adminbot brfa

Hi, this is just a notice that I have opened a brfa for an adminbot to delete images that are available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons per WP:CSD#F8 --Chris 10:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement re: User:Breein1007

Resolved

 – Wrong noticeboard, followup instructions for AE. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have started an enforcement request. So far only one admin have looked at it and he said: "all of this happened before his block" which is not true. The problem with User Breein is a long time problem which have continued after his latest block on June 1. And the block he received on June 1 was only for edit warring at one article. I have at this enforcement request presented many other things he has done that is not connected to his latest block on June 1 which was only for edit warring at one article. Could some admin please go through this: [96] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are runing from one board to another because you can't accept any decision which won't cast sacntions against Breein. The diffs I have seen, but I didn't look at all of these you provided, were all before his block, mostly many monthes ago and the viloations were negligable (mocking the Egnlish of an editor who write in purpose in bad English, as was agreed by all editors and admins in this closed case you choosed to use again against him and etc). What you are doing now is WP forum shopping. --Gilisa (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree - SD, if you want someone to review the case on AE, you need to post a list of specific diffs that happened after the block and therefore currently relevant. The info you provided already was too scattered in time to see if any new actionable things were recent. This board isn't appropriate for further followup. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to "forum shop". At the time of this notice I left here, only one admin had looked at it and he said that all the edits were before his block - which is not true, and when I pointed this out to him on his talkpage, he didn't answer. So I wanted some admin who is more active to take a look at it. Georgewilliamherbert, just because he was blocked for edit warring at one article doesn't mean that all his long time problematic behaviour and incivility gets nulled. It has never been sanctioned and it has continued after his latest block which was only for edit warring. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007's block log indicates a block in February, March, April, and 2 in May. They have been sanctioned repeatedly. One revert that may not be entirely aligned with article consensus after the most recent block does not make a good case.

Look, we're all aware of the rise in conflict between Israeli editors and Palestinian and Arabic editors. It's been increasing all year and is worse over the last couple of weeks for evident reasons. Your argument seems to boil down to "You all haven't acted yet, all year, in dealing with this problem user! Don't you want to act now, when I remind you about all the stuff they've been doing?".

In reality we are all painfully aware of what they've been doing, and what everyone else has been doing. There was no actionable new incident after the latest block to trigger a general review. You are within your rights to file a request for enforcement, but you're doing so without introducing new evidence we haven't already considered and decided not to act on.

If we were to reexamine everyone's prior and ongoing behavior and lower the threshold for enacting sanctions a whole bunch of people would be in trouble. We could technically do that, it's within the rules. I don't think it is reasonable or fair for us to do it inconsistently rather than equally to all parties. I don't think that the situation has gotten far worse this week, to justify stomping up and down on a bunch of you on both sides and making a bunch of you go away.

I'm only one admin out of 1700 (or 850 active), so another one may form a different opinion and chose to act. But part of our jobs as admins is to balance out everyone's interest and contributions with protecting the community and encyclopedia as a whole. That job includes a whole lot of discretion and trust that we'll do reasonable efforts to treat everyone, including problem users, with respect and attempt to engage and cooperatively modify behavior rather than simply blocking them or banning them. We are collectively attempting to do that with both sides.

Something could happen tomorrow which would indicate that we need to do some new sanctions or warnings or discussions. But nothing happened the day before yesterday that did, in my opinion.

Your concerns are not superfluous. The issues are real and have been followed for some time. But our jobs as admins are to judge when to leave things alone, when to discuss, and when to sanction or block. The community can issue topic or editor bans, but unless you file for one of those you have to settle for what admins' consensus or individual judgement end up deciding.

If more new behavior develops then we'll look at the situation again and reassess (communally, and I personally will). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

George, you said: "you're doing so without introducing new evidence we haven't already considered and decided not to act on." So does that include this: "There is this one piece of shit idiot admin"... "he has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old"... "I was kind of looking forward to making a fool out of him for a bigger audience and stripping him of his admin powers""What the hell are you talking about" "deleting bullshit. the truth is that you have been brainwashed and it's really very sad to see black people who understand what it means to be oppressed spewing anti-semitic garbage""I would suggest that you either speak for yourself, or ask your doctor for an increase in dose of your meds; seems like your multiple personalities are acting up." (Then ads it again [97])"the brutality and disgusting nature of the Arabs in the Yom Kippur War" This is only a part of the things I added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All of those are old - May 26, May 16, April 19, December 19, and March 31st.

Again - Admins have discretion to not act. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive template replacements

• Discussion moved from WP:ANI, as this is the more proper place for a community ban discussion, which this has now become. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

174.3.121.27 (talk) has nominated Template:Blockquote for deletion but has not awaited a consensus for deletion before embarking on a campaign to replace it everywhere.

The most obvious consequence of the replacement is that footnote markers (the figures marking and linking citations) following the blockquote are being displaced a line, indented and preceded by an empty underscore (example). (I have checked this on both Firefox and IE.) The user is claiming that "the reference is supposed to placed in that area", and apparently thinks that the footnote has to be on a line of its own, rather than immediately after the quote, to "cite the whole quote, not just a word or sentence". I would think that the indentation of a blockquote as a whole pretty much makes it obvious that it all comes from the same source. Quotation marks play the same role for shorter quotes. These are generally accepted conventions understood by all educated (and probably most uneducated) readers, and there is no need to reinvent a new and inferior wheel.

174.3.121.27 seems to be following his/her own rather idiosyncratic views of how citations should look and seems determined to create a de facto situation before anyone else has had the chance to interfer. --Hegvald (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning; he carried on, at high speed, so he needs a block now. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Ale jrb for 24h. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but its more than past time. Said IP is highly likely to be yet another IP sock of 100110100 (talk · contribs), who was given free reign to continue socking despite his real account being indef blocked. He's pulled this with multiple other templates, including {{Otheruses4}} which he stripped from hundreds of articles then tried to have deleted. In those cases, he mostly got support and encouragement, despite it being well known he was a banned user violating his ban, so it is not unsurprising that he keeps right on doing it. He's already been here multiple times, with adminis generally deciding "eh, he isn't doing anything too bad". I gave another editor wondering about him a good summary in my talk[98]. Perhaps now folks might consider actually dealing with this on a more long term basis. He's gotten 24 hour blocks before on some of his previous IPs. They didn't do anymore than this one will, and 10 to 2-, he'll be back within days, if not hours, on yet another IP because its been made clear that, in his case, banned does not mean banned.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, yes. This one is a piece of work. This is not the first campaign of dubious cleanup he's embarked on - the Talk page of his prior IP, here, is instructive on that score. This problem has been begging for a solution. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this user - esp. the 174.3.123.220 variety - should be blocked for a long time. He's had AGF many chances, even after prior blocks. He's taken up far too much time from all of us, admins. included.

Incivility, taciturn - yet time to discuss shopping, jumping around WP reference sites - to troll, does just enough replies & ESs to deflect accusations of not compromising, very chequered history (so is tech-savvy), anon. IP despite > 4,000 edits in 6 weeks, made 18 edits of templates, trivial edits - to irritate rather than improve, just out to push the boundaries, for devilment?

No sense of Consensus or what Collaboration means. Loose cannon? No user page. Asked many times to provide ESs. He just has an axe to grind.

Surely we've all had enough? This user's block (& range?) needs extending - he's not for turning. Trafford09 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ok. We have an indef blocked user that is continuing to disruptively sock/edit via IPs. Sounds like the next step is to upgrade the indefinite block to an official site-ban. That'll make it much easier to do the official steps needed for dealing with the shifting IPs, revert on sight, etc.. So, are we ready to turn this into an actual ban discussion? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Official site-ban? Absolutely. Trafford09 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly support, of course. He was indef banned initially for a wide range of issues, including wikhounding and what seems to have been the final straw (death threats), and he has basically skirted the ban ever since and continued with the same sorts of issues, including continued wikihounding myself, and I believe several others, through his various IPs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of history here and it might be helpful to understand it at least in its broad strokes so that the discussion here is at less risk of being sidetracked by old issues that could be thrown in like chum. Anma's Talk page discussion, to which she previously linked (here it is again), is a good place to get started. JohnInDC (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:100110100 - Community ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

100110100 (talk · contribs) has been banned by the community per unanimous consensus. –MuZemike 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Looking through the various links provided above, we have a long term indef-blocked user, who appears to have, at no point, shown any intention of respecting the block. They have continued to edit, often disruptively, despite the blocks. Even a well meant mentoring attempt earlier this year failed to turn this user into an asset to the project. So I would like to propose that User:100110100, whatever account or IP he may decide to edit under, be officially declared community-banned. This will make it much easier administratively to block his varied IPs, and to revert on sight his edits. It will also send a clear message, once and for all, that he is no longer welcome on the project.

• Support - as the one proposing this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - editor is disruptive and doesn't seem to understand this. Can we do an IP range block? Yworo (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a community ban is an administrative measure, not a technical one. The feasibility of a rangeblock is really an independent issue, depending on the size of the range he uses and the likelihood of collateral damage. A ban would make it easier administratively to apply such blocks, but the technical feasibility of a range block is really a totally separate issue. We have banned users who have such wide ranges of IPs available to them that range blocks are totally out of the question. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Given the IPs I've seen, it might be doable, but I understand it's a technical issue separate from the administrative issue. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as one he has wikihounded with his various IPs - also suggest a check user to find and tag all IPs he's hit under (if possible) and if a range block is also possible -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's kinda pointless. Checkuser is the ability to see the IPs behind an account. In this case, there's no real indication that he is using accounts to sock, just IPs. So we can already see all the information that a checkuser is able to return. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He seems to change IPs every few weeks, and I suspect many have been missed between the ones noted here. If what we have here is enough to evaluate a possible range block, as part of the ban (as he has made it clear he will not obey any block/ban on him from the current history), that's fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This user has made some sound edits, but he leaves a path of confusion and hard feelings in his wake through his inexplicable and idiosyncratic personal editoral campaigns combined with a determined refusal to engage in useful dialogue. He is persistent and unrepentant and it is asking too much of other editors to follow him around to make sure he doesn't break things. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The user is disruptive, time-consuming for all concerned, unresponsive - ploughing a lone furrow wearing earmuffs. I think that one of his user pages (the only one I've found that shows any views he has or standards he holds dear) sums up the character best here, along with the cryptic user no. (not name) that he used. I'm at a loss to tell the percentage mix of his behavioural causes. They seem to be some combination of cleverness, technical & Wikipedia know-how, obstinacy, insensitivity, boredom, vindictiveness & mischief. He either can't, or - I'm afraid - won't, control his behaviour, let alone discuss it. He has too much time on his hands & a personality disorder, for which Wikipedia somehow serves as an outlet - his problem & sadly ours too. Enough's enough. My other concern would be wp:Deny recognition. Trafford09 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. his repeated crusades against completely harmless things only really have two rational explanations: (1) he has no concept of what's important, or (2) he's trolling. In either case he's persistently demonstrated that he's unwilling to change despite the fact that his behaviour is unambiguously disruptive and causes widespread bad feeling. Hence, Wikipedia is better off without his contributions. ~ mazca ^talk 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. He's apparently a timesink; I'd say: 'good riddance'. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. OpenTheWindows, sir! 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment admin User:Frazzydee seems to have extensive interactions with this user, I notified him/her about this discussion. Sole Soul (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• If the edits I reported (above) are typical, as appears to be the case, and the user has made death threats in addition to that, I see no reason to object to this. (Not an administrator, but neither are all the other people who have commented here are, as far as I can tell.) --Hegvald (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not being an admin is fine. That's why these are "Community bans" rather than "Administrator bans". :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support we've no patients for compulsive sockers. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored from archive, as this is still open. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Handling long-term tendentiousness

Davemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been engaging in long term edit/revert wars on several of articles, most notably Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (CR), Triple Goddess and Horned God. His process is to wear down the opposition until they let him do what he wants. I know of at least one productive editor Davemon drove off WP and I suspect several other editors left as well but don't have confirmation. He's particularly adept at intimidating less experienced editors with his bluster and accusations and string of policies.

I have been patiently trying to work with him for 9 months on the CR article. I note that he came to the CR article in retaliation for criticism of his actions on the talk page of the Triple Goddess article by User:Kathryn NicDhàna and myself. Although he denies wikihounding a woman from one article to another article in order to bully her, it certainly looked that way at the time and this issue was discussed on Kathryn's talk page.[99]

Unfortunately, he is practically a textbook example of a tendentious editor. He often ignores consensus, cites policy (usually incorrectly), is argumentative (not in a productive/constructive way), etc.

I've finally reached my limit after he did a flurry of "improvements" today. Other editors have stepped in to work on the article but his tendentiousness is wearying to everyone. I've finally left a note on the CR talk page[100] but I would appreciate input on how to handle such persistent tendentiousness. He's very skilled at skirting the edge of violating policies such as 3RR. At the very least, I'd like some more eyes on the article and his actions. The article, which certainly had flaws before he began working on it but was at least well-written and extensively footnoted, has begun to slowly disintegrate in various parts due to his persistent ministrations. Pigman☿/talk 02:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Though it's possible this belongs at long term editing abuse, I think there are a number of issues here, such as the hounding and bullying. Davemon was succeeding in wearing down people at the Triple Goddess article, and I'm one of the few people who called him on it. He promptly turned up on the only article on WP on which I have a degree of COI and started degrading it, often saying insulting things to or about me in the process. I've mostly stayed off even the talk page of the CR article, but it's been disturbing to watch him get away with so much for so long, on multiple articles. A number of established editors expressed interest in doing an RfC, but they've mostly left the project now. A couple of them said Davemon was the last straw. We need something with more teeth than an RfC. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This diff is where another admin and I discussed Dave's long-term editing abuse: [101] - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As a temporary measure I've given Deorad (talk · contribs), Beurlach (talk · contribs), and Davemon (talk · contribs) 24 hours off for yesterday's edit warring. As for dispute resolution, if you're thinking of taking this down a formal WP:DR route an RfC would still be a useful step . If it's effective, great; if not, it's "evidence for the prosecution" should more direct measures be needed. EyeSerene^talk 10:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EyeSerene. I hope that will help. I considered an RfC and several other editors who interacted with Davemon on the other articles mentioned above expressed willingness to participate in the process. Most people, however, who have dealt with him extensively on articles and talk pages seem to prefer just opting for avoiding him rather than deal with the ongoing stress, even in an RfC. This appears to be a deliberate tack on Davemon's part: creating an aversion to engaging with him. It's possible he may have alternate accounts because he has a pattern of engaging intensely for a few days or a week, then not edit anything for a few days to several weeks, then returning to argue more. This is a frustrating pattern. When refuted in argument, he simply shifts arguments or, more frustratingly, redefines the basis for the argument. I suspect that he enjoys the process of argument and conflict much more than actually improving articles. At least, that's my observation. In other words, I think RfC and DR will do little to resolve his attitude and behaviour. I know this is not AGF but his long pattern of conflict inclines me to this view. I think he's burned through his AGF some time ago. I have a little experience dealing with editors similar to him. Still, I guess those processes are the logical next step. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Without having seen the specifics of what's going on with these articles, (and noting that I am not an administrator myself, only an interested bystander), I'd note that WP:AGF only goes so far. You may find WP:CIR to be interesting. It's only an essay, but has some valid food for thought, I think. I can't guarantee that I'll have the time or knowledge to be able to wade into the articles in any significant way, but I'll put them on my watchlist. — e. ripley\^talk 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to WP:CIR. I've read it before and agree with the basic premise. Note that it took me 9 months of engaging on the talk page and attempting to reconcile Davemon's concerns and behaviour before I brought the issues to an admin noticeboard for feedback. It takes a lot of evidence of bad faith (or extremely obvious evidence) before I decide someone isn't moving the project forward but sucking the life out of every editor they engage with. Anyone who drives competent and cooperative longtime editors from WP while offering poor writing, sloppy citations and petty irritations in their place... well, that's a lose-lose situation for the project and the community. And even watchlisting these articles would be helpful, so thank you. Davemon has managed to remain under the radar because he works on articles that are backwaters where only one or two editors engage with him. I don't think he'll be able to continue that modus operendi in the future. Pigman☿/talk 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha! WP:CIR. That's the essay I was thinking of as I looked over all of this. Thanks for reminding me of the link, e.r. I agree. Very pertinent. And Pigman, you're far more patient than me. It was clear to me months ago that Davemon enjoys disrupting the 'pedia and is not going to change. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see there seems to be a reluctance to go down the RfC route :) This is understandable where experience has shown it's unlikely to be productive, and I have no wish to make editors jump through hoops merely for the sake of process. However, blocks on the grounds of WP:COMPETENCE tend to be indefinite because they're usually a last resort when gentler forms of behaviour modification have been unsuccessfully tried. Might it be preferable to at least attempt some form of editing restriction first? Perhaps WP:1RR on the article or even a topic ban? See WP:RESTRICT for other ideas and some typical scenarios. EyeSerene^talk 07:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene, I agree that seeking a block solely on WP:COMPETENCE grounds is hardly a practical path. It's not that I'm totally adverse to the user RfC route; I just doubt the, ah, effectiveness in changing his behaviour. His, ah, reluctance to engage other editors constructively and collaboratively on Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism is hardly a one-off (if you can call 9 months of argumentation a "one-off".) I can name 4-5 other articles off the top of my head where his behaviour and tenor was exactly the same. This is has been the pattern for as long as he's been on WP. The attitude is: I'm right and you, no matter what the consensus is, are wrong. (Aside: I was rather astonished when he attempted to lecture me on consensus. I've been using group consensus decision-making in real life for almost 40 years in meetings and he told me it's not just about !votes. (Do tell! I did not know that! Harrumph, says the grumpy guy.) This is not new territory for me.) Thanks for the feedback. I'm looking at the options available as to which will be most effective. Your suggestions have been helpful. Broader community input will probably be a necessary next step. Pigman☿/talk 01:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope anyone interested will note that both the admins here (Pigman and Kathryn) are authors of one of the key primary source documents cited in the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article [see[102]], and at least one of the other heavily-relied on primary sources. They apparently see any attempt to change their article as an "attack" and are simply trying to bully-off any questioning, criticism or genuine improvement of "their" article. As far as I'm concerned there is a clear case of ongoing ownership issues by Pigman and a loss of NPOV caused by the conflict of interest both these editors have with the aims of Wikipedia and their promotional agendas.

Further, taking this to an Admin board is, in my opinion, an abuse of Admin status. This is essentially an editorial, content dispute, based on my attempting to bring the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article inline with comments made by completely independent editors at a GA reassessment and an [[103]]. Neither of these Admins are independent of the topic, nor of the disputes. Pigmans, and Kathys efforts here are little more than protracted ad-honimen arguments attempting to blacken my name with empty accusations of "trolling" "hounding" and "insulting" and "using more than one account". During my 24-hour block, Pigman posted vitriolic personal attacks at multiple locations under the guise of being an admin and posting 'warnings'. See [[104]] and [[105]]. Such comments really shouldn't be made by an admin involved in a content dispute with an editor, I see this as plain and simple bullying.

The fact is, Kathryn and Pigman are not uninvolved Admins who are trying to solve a problem with an rogue editor. These are two Admins, engaged in an ongoing content dispute, both with deep conflict of interest problems on the article in question, attempting to vehemently protect their preferred vision of that article and ensure their continued ownership.

Finally, I think EyeSerene's 24 block for 3RR was the right call. I was sucked into edit-warring with multiple single-purpose accounts [[106]],[[107]] and should have backed off much sooner. Still, more eyes this article can only help improve the situation. Davémon (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems you all have a common request then - you want more eyes and you want to know how to deal with tendentious conduct (if any). The best way is probably to open an article RfC on one of the issues and let others provide their input; usually others can figure if tendentious editing is occurring or not and you can proceed from there. At the same time, article RfC highlights an area where more eyes are needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried an RfC on the issues with the article here: [108], where [user:Whoosit] responded that the reliance on primary sources, and notability issues I was attempting to raise/solve were both valid concerns. This was subsequently argued away and ignored by Pigman (which is also the case for the reliable sources check I requested, and the GA-review). I'll do another RfC on one of the article problems and hope that a consensus emerges. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a community ban for Professor Todd.

User:Professor Todd has received multiple blocks for three revert rule violation, and personal attacks. However, he was also blocked for excessive sockpuppetry too. I finally noticed that Beeblebrox has blocked him indefinitely too. I propose him to be community banned from Wikipedia so that all his new socks edits, especially from the article Corporation will be reverted. Minimac (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, we do make a practice of automatically reverting edits by a community banned user, but that doesn't mean we need to ban someone just to be entitled to deal with disruptive socking. Has the user really being behaving so egregiously that we need to establish a community consensus that they are unwelcome in any way or form? Or is it enough to just revert the relevant edits and block the socks as needed? Martinp (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

If one has contributed photographs to the project, but released them only under creative commons, is there a way to rescind that copyright or have them removed from the project if the contributor decides he no longer wants to be associated with the photos in question? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You can tag them {{db-author}} which will generally have them deleted from En. Wikipedia, but it does not force their removal from any mirrors or the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I realize it wont remove them from mirrors... I just want to remove them from WP and the Commons as I no longer want to be associated with them, since some of them have lead to politicization of articles and my own headaches. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it's legally possible to do that. See Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted. However, there are always cases when ignoring the rules is the best course of action. Graham87 01:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good thing to invoke IAR about. "db-author" will usually only be granted for an article if there's been no significant contributions by other editors, but an image is not like an article in that it's not usual to "edit" an image. (although, opbviously, it's done: cropping, white balancing etc. It's just not usual.) In this case, the fact that an image is in use in an article is an indication that it's been found to be of value, so I would urge that no images that are in use be deleted. In fact, my preference would be that no images be deleted at all for this reason.

Sorry, nsaum75, nothing personal whatsoever, and I can certainly sympathize with your desire to distance yourself from the atmosphere that's current in the Israel/Palestine topic area, I just think it would be a terrible precedent to start deleting images because the uploader changes his or her mind about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He can easily remove them from articles if they are used. I've had images I've uploaded deleted before. *shrug* I don't think it is a terrible precedent. If it is their own work, a photographer should be just as free to have an image removed as they are to upload it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes he can, and he has, but that's obviously not what I meant -- and when you upload an image, you've done so under the conditions as stated, and removal is not one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In the past, we've deleted unused and personal (ie images intended for userspace) images, but we don't let someone go through articles, removing their pictures so they can then ask for them to be deleted. Looking at nsaum75's images, he seems to have quite a few and they are being used in articles. I'd delete the odd one for him if it's not being used - and if he hasn't removed it from articles - but the licensing is non-revocable and I don't think it's appropriate to allow people to withdraw all their donations and contributions because they've become disenchanted with the project. It's disruptive to the project, damages articles and it will create havoc as others who get annoyed about something will expect the same treatment. Sorry, Nsaum75, but I think any images you've uploaded and donated under a free license which are being used need to stay where they are. I will also add that I can recall specific cases where people have done what Anma suggests - gone through removing all their images from articles - and they've been blocked for disruptive editing. So I certainly would not advise doing anything like that. Sarah 06:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I struck out part of my last comment - I saw two edit summaries in nsaum75's contribs about removing images that would be deleted under db-author, and didn't realize they were for edits to nsaum75's user page. I thought instead they were from articles, so my statement "and he has [removed images from articles]" was incorrect. My apologies to nsaum75. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A redirect I created has been nominated for speedy deletion - eh?!?!

When the candidates of the TV programme Junior Apprentice were announced a few weeks ago, I redirected all of their names to the parent article as they would be plausible search terms (such as Hannah Cherry, Rhys Rosser, Emma Walker...). Bizzarely, the page Arjun Rajyagor (one of the redirects) was nominated for speedy deletion today without any clear reasoning - [109]. Note that the user (User:Arjun024) appears to be called Arjun himself. Surely this does not qualify for speedy deletion and these kind of simple redirects are allowed? KingOfTheMedia (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This really does not need any admin intervention at this time. An editor CSD'd the redirect, it was declined - happens hundreds of times daily. Yeah, I expect the editor in question monitors that page closely. If you felt it was more problematic, then you should have discussed it directly with the editor. There's no behaviour here that needs investigation yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

its a simple thing buddy; i nominated it for CSD because "i thought" it deserved to be. You could have talked up with me before you took up things at the admin notice-board. And i am amused that you guessed malice from my username. Arjun^codename024 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin required to close RfC

Resolved

 – Closed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The RfC at WT:TFA#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO? is long overdue for a close, so it would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved admin could take a look with a view to closing it (as the initiator, I am way too involved!). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. If I think I can't close it, I'll note here again so someone else can have a go. Peter 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My watchlist has been hacked and vandalized!

Greetings. I've just discovered that my watchlist has been hacked and vandalized, by adding red links that contain some hate speech about some articles I've been watching. I kept all the vandal's watched red links for your reference. I can't help but wonder if this is a security whole in Wikipedia, in my browser, or it's just some skillful coding from the hacker. And if so is my whole account compromised? Do I have to change my password? Or just delete the links and ignore it ever happened? I hope you have a solution for this problem, and thanks in advance. Regards. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Relax, your account is secure. When someone moves an article to a different name, and someone else moves it back, your watchlist watches both article names from then on. It was just an annoying page-move vandal. i obviously can't see your watchlist, but I'm fairly sure some pages on your list were moved to the offensive names, someone else moved them back, and now both names appear in your watchlist. Just delete the names you don't want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If a page is moved that you are watching, the new title will be watched automatically. Even when the page is moved back to the correct location, and the page deleted, the logs will still show up (as red links) unless they're revdeleted. I suggest that you probably got caught by the spate of move-vandalism that has been happening. You can safely ignore and unwatch them probably - there are no current significant security issues with MediaWiki. ;) Ale_Jrb^talk 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you guys! I feel much better now! I appreciate your quick response, and the time and effort you put into maintaining our beloved Wikipedia. Best regards. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy category renaming violating the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license

When checking my deleted contributions to self-review some recent speedy deletions, I noticed that the change I left at Category:Football (soccer) hooligan firms classifying association football hooligan firms as criminal organizations were among the deleted contributions. I then checked Category:Association football hooligan firms and saw my contributions there without any credit after checking the history, making me upset about this clear violation of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. I then undeleted the former category and then left a soft redirect there, and left a link to its history page in the talk page of the newer category to try to remedy the situation.

We need to stop speedy category renames until we figure out a way to credit the people who contributed to the old category. Maybe we need to file a Mediawiki Bugzilla enhancement request ticket allowing category pages to be moved to allow their histories to be preserved as part of a speedy category renaming. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, how about a null edit with contributor's names as the edit summary? Most categories aren't going to have very many edits. --B (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think that merely adding an existing category to a page is a copyrightable action. That's the only change you made to the text of the category [here (or is there some other edit that I'm missing?)
2. When creating the new category, Cydebot used the following edit summary: "Robot: Moved from Category:Football (soccer) hooligan firms. Authors: PeeJay2K3, Kbdank71, Black Falcon, Qwghlm, Cydebot, Nicknackrussian, Jesse Viviano" - so you are being given credit as one of the authors.

That having been said, I've seen situations where real contributions to categories, which were subsequently renamed more than once, have lost their attribution. I think that the following would help:

1. When Cydebot renames a category, it should leave a (red) link to the old category, making it easier for admins to recreate the detailed history of the category.
2. If Cydebot runs into a category, where some edit summary links to some user's user name, it should request that a human editor deal with attributing the edit. This may be a case where the real author of the edit isn't the contributor who did it, but rather the linked-to user.
3. When Cydebot renames categories, it should subsequently list those contributors, in stead of itself, the next time the category is renamed.

I'm leaving a note at the bot's operator to participate in the discussion.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the move log is not visible from the history page. That is why I did not think to look for it. Second, one other example is when I added the template to notify users of the now empty category Category:Suspected hoax articles of the shortcut I created, CAT:HOAX. (It now points to the renamed category Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles, for your information.) This is why I advocate filing a Bugzilla ticket to allow page moves within the Category namespace, and to and from other namespaces, in order to preserve edit histories and to allow speedy moves of certain problematic list articles to the Category namespace. Also, in the off-chance that many people have made contributions to a category like Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which has received plenty of edits, the edit summary for the move log will certainly run out of room and cut many contributors' usernames off. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that merely adding the name of an existing page (category, template, interwiki, shortcut), or even a template with the name of an existing page as a parameter, isn't copyrightable. So, in my opinion, neither of your edits requires attribution. That having been said, there clearly is a problem, as I pointed out in my previous post. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is a limitation in the MediaWiki software, in that we cannot move the text of a category page in the same way that we do an article. Until that is allowed, all we have are hacks and work-arounds that, as you point out, have various problems associated with them. But it's not that big a deal because people tend not to add copyrightable content to a category page anyway. And if someone were to, that detail would really belong on a relevant article, not the category page itself (this is just how things are done on Wikipedia). --Cyde Weys 12:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way that CydeBot could have a threshold set for notifying a human that manual copying of the history is needed, eg, if there is more than one sentence of prose (ignoring categories and templates)? --B (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply have it add a {{db-histmerge}} to the new cat. And to answer one question a bit earlier, nothing in Jesse's edit is actually copyrightable. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If history merges were possible, I would have done them and have just blocked Cydebot and left a note on Cyde's talk page until the code is fixed to perform them. Unfortunately, moving anything in the Category namespace is impossible, so history merges are therefore impossible. That is why I have suggested opening up a Mediawiki Bugzilla ticket to fix this issue. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that only a small percentage of edits in the category namespace are copyrightable (most merely involve addition/removal of links or category tags), so history merges generally would be unnecessary. In general, attribution by means of listing the original contributors should suffice, no? That's not to say, of course, that it wouldn't be better if we could move category pages so as to preserve the history. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A listing of the contributors is fine for license compliance—not the preferred method, but it does avoid copyvio/licensing violations. VernoWhitney (talk)

Category talk: pages, such as Category talk:Association football hooligan firms, can be moved. I propose that CydeBot copy the Category: history to the corresponding talk page and move it to the new location. Multiple renames would be appended to the history. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure a block of CydeBot is necessary, but in any case, feel free to file a bug in BugZilla. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)