Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Let me just mention that without Sandstein handling things, this rather important area appears to be somewhat understaffed at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised one bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this? (strange site-redirect)

Resolved

 – Typing error by OP, no action required. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this: http://survey.prizesgiveaway.com/w/index.php?f=wikkipedia (Popped up when I manually typed wikipedia.org into my browser) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you mistyped, wikipedia.org should take you straight to the main site. Your computer may be infected with a virus or malware that's redirecting your browser to other URLs. Run MalwareBytes (malwarebytes.org - Make SURE that's the site you download from) and Antivirus (http://free.avg.com/gb-en/homepage or http://www.free-av.com/ are safe). Exxolon (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems the most likely explanation; I've had to deal with browser hijackers before, they can be really quite annoying. Another common one is for the hijacker to replace search engine hits (google, yahoo, ask, and whatever else), with its own advertisements. By the way, I would recommend trying to download any antivirus or malware applications from a different computer if possible, as it may well attempt to intercept URLs of known antiviruses. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

More likely it's just typosquatting. I just typed wikkipedia.org into a browser window and it took me to the prize givaway site. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't notice the "f=wikkipedia" in the url indicating the referrer ;) Yes, it must have been a typo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Definitely a typographic error, marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:M12390

The user User talk:M12390 has been repeatedly warned on his pages on issues concerning MQM, Altaf Hussein, and Imran Farooq. It seems he has an agenda he's POV-pushing. On the page I fould him on for a recently deceased person (Imran Farooq), 2 editors (one of which was me) have inserted content that is sourced (after a discussion with another fellow who considered it uncited, but we duly found sources) and he removes it saying it is "irrelevant." In addition to his bias he has gone and first WP:NPAed the other editor User talk:Saqib Qayyum#Why are you hell bent in highlighting the "Muhajir" background of Imran Farooq? and then at my own page User talk:Lihaas#A Lahori CANNOT be neutral about Karachi (which came AFTER i warned him about personal attacks).

I believe this is the right place to post the message, the help desk didnt answer my query on September 19.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

I think ANI might have been more appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Any unbiased researcher would soon learn that Lahoris in particular and many opinion-makers of cities on the GT Road (Peshawar -> Islamabad -> Lahore) for some reason cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Check this out. According to the Daily Mirror "Within minutes of the death of Dr Farooq - a leading member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement which means United National Movement - websites in Islamabad were awash with claims he had been assassinated or killed by his own bodyguard."

Where did these people find out about the details of the murder when the Scotland Yard has been scrambling to get clues?

Also, UK-based Punjabi supporters of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (based in Lahore) are writing all kinds of conspiracy theories against the MQM similar to this. This website is based in Rawalpindi, another city on the GT Road. M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is just users from opposite points of views, I have edited there and there has been ethnic labeling without clear supporting citations, user Lihass wants to categorize Farooq as an immigrant, Farooq was born in Pakistan and where I come from we don't do that, as in a person born in England is English, if his father was born in Pakistan and moved to England then his father was an immigrant...anyways, User:M12390 has got a bit heated about that, as I see it a word in his ear to keep cool and stay civil are all that is needed for the time being. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Off2riorob for your kind comments. I would definitely try to keep my cool. :) M12390 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, We had a civil discussion about the content and the cites showing where he was on the talk page.

As for M12390 his attacks both here and on both talk pages are WP:NPA by any stretch of the imagination. He has also had warning from many others in the past over all such articles. How many more warnings? The first time i did so he responded affirmatively, then went again and i wrote him (without a template), and he went right back to attacking and labeling.(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

Lihaas is a biased contributor. He has no business "warning" me. First, I accepted him as an unbiased contributor so I showed good faith. However, he rapidly became aggressive, started accusing me of whatever, and started threatening me. I absolutely have no problem with the neutral point of view. However, there are certain things that just cannot be neutralized. In those things we need to at least initially give the subject matter (especially if it is a human being with a vulnerable family ) some benefit of the doubt until a strong neutral point of view emerges with time. It is only human. Lihaas is biased to start off with, and the other person he mentions in his complain above is as bisaed as Lihaas is. Many Lahoris just cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Why is it? I don't know. I don't see many Karachiites going around commenting on Lahore-based anything. But some Lahoris make their business to poke around and malign Karachi-based people and entities. Something is up!!! M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Shutterbug

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.

Ban enacted. Courcelles 05:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

• Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See enclosed relevant evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 03:33, 2 June 2009 - Blocked 24 hours for violation of topic ban. 19:57, 17 May 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Wobblegenerator, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 18:12, 19 May 2010 - Shutterbug sockmaster account indef blocked, for sockpuppetry. 20:28, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:MrSimmonds, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 20:29, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:JessaRinaldi, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 22:57, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jbsweden9, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 01:59, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:AlexJohnTorres12, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:42, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jimgreensboro, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:44, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Mike Greenwood, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:45, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Monsignore, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 03:49, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Fairyday, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. 20:25, 24 September 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Margaret's son, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 01:31, 29 May 2009 - Notice of WP:ARBSCI restrictions by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 03:31, 2 June 2009 - Block notice for violation of topic ban by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 17:06, 19 May 2010 - Indef block notice for sockpuppetry by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

1. The account is already subject to probation, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation.
2. The account is already topic-banned, and restricted to one account, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted.
3. After violating probation, violating the topic-ban, violating the restriction to one account, and violating site policy on sockpuppetry, the account has been indef blocked [1].

• Request this be changed from an indef block, to a ban.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support. As proposed, above. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that if it passes an official amendment is appended to the relevant cases to centralize the aftermath. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious. MER-C 07:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support; the user appears to only be interested in causing disruption, and making it a community ban protects the community when having to deal with any future sockpuppetry. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If he was hoping to be taken seriously, using ten different sockpuppets was not a smart move. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support User has proven that they refuse to follow the policies of Wikipedia and the restrictions that have been placed upon them on several occasions. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I thought it was done already. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Recurrent sockpuppeting can only be fixed by permaban. I am not familiar with the contribution of the user but the proposed decision does not look like controversial 203.202.234.226 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Etc. etc.; once this is over we can stop paying attention to him anymore. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is overdue. The user clearly does not intend to follow site policies.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 27 September 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.

OgreBot Commons images

Please note: I am requesting to create a supervised automated bot to assist in the process of clearing the {{subst:ncd}} (i.e., commons) backlog. I am requesting approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot 2, and I wanted to get consensus here for it. Please feel free to comment here or there. Of course, I am going to be extremely careful with this bot, and any unforeseen issues will be printed out and I will have to fix them manually. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck to you! If it works, that would be fabulous. (bot clueless here, but, really, fabulous. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-working 404 Wikipedia link

Firstly I hope this is a place to bring attention to a non-working wikipedia article link.

I was searching for "Senkaku Islands" from google, and clicking on the wikipedia result gave me a "404 Not Found" error. Typing "senkaku islands" in Wikipedia's search box will throw up the same error. Similarly, clicking on "senkaku islands" on the disambigiuos Senkaku article page shows up the same 404 error. Same with this redirect page. In fact, the only way I can reach the article is to search for the less common Diaoyutai.

A check with the move logs show that the page has recently been subject with quite a number of moves, due to it being a result territorial disputes between China and Japan. (That was the reason why I was searching for the article originally, as I was looking for more background on the incident). The last discussion regarding the move resulted in a "no-move" agreement among the editors, but the prior moves may have somehow "broken" the way Wikipedia is linking to the article.

If I'm reporting this to the wrong board, hopefully someone can re-direct me to the right place to report this error. As this is a hot news topic at the moment, the article will be highly sought after and the bad link should be fixed as soon as possible. Thanks in advance!Zhanzhao (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, it works for me... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too; either you have a virus sending all links to external spam sites or something broke somewhere temporarily. The better venue for questions of this nature is WP:VPT, by the way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm thats odd, will hop over to WP:VPT to post the report, but can you guys test this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands? Thats the exact wikipedia URL for the Senkaku Islands article that I have problems getting into, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 06:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No issues whatsoever with that link on my end. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Brett Jon Salisbury

this may not be the correct place to bring this, please forgive me if so. i am having a discussion with a user at this deletion talk page. it appears this IP, the main editor and possibly author of the article, may be borrowing other users accounts (notice two seperate posts signed by two different usernames, posted in the same edit by the IP editor). cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

upon further inspection, the author of the aritcle is obviously the same person as this IP. IP is now impersonating other users in the discussion in an attempt to influence me. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the other users involved in the discussion on the AfD, the intent of the IP user does not seem malicious. However, the IP/User (apparently having technical difficulty figuring out logins, signing posts, etc) could definitely use a clue. Actually, probably more than one.... In addition to technical issues, their style of arguing makes them very difficult to work with. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

External link w/brackets?

I'm not completely sure this is the right place to post this, but I've been having trouble putting a link into the article The Sibley Guide to Birds. I'm using the cite journal template in a reference, but the link is broken up when I save the page because the url has brackets in it. I can't use a link shortener because those are all blacklisted. The url is http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113[0255:OL]2.0.CO;2

Can anyone help? —out^offocus 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It should work if you change the brackets to [ and ], respectively. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113[0255:OL]2.0.CO;2 ... Testing link --B (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —out^offocus 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the "right" place, btw. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain and User:BilCat

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

---

Hello,

A while back I saw that Association football articles were referenced simply as "football", but American football articles were called American football. This didn't make sense, so for awhile I changed Association football articles from "football" to Association football to help avoid POV bias between the two codes. I went to Manchester United with this and another editor said to me, "No, it's an WP:ENGVAR issue, since in Manchester, people call Association football simply as football."

That's fine with me, as long as there isn't a POV, so I figured "Ok, i'll fix the American football articles to put them in line with the Association football articles rather than the other way around." That's when the trouble started.

I opened up an RFC on the issue, and no consensus could be reached either for or against the ENGVAR option or the full code name option, so I went with the ENGVAR option and Cuchullain (talk · contribs) and BilCat (talk · contribs) (who participated in the RFC, but did not contribute any solutions to fixing the problem) started on a campaign to destroy all my attempts to help with the problem.

It's gotten to the point where They're talking about me on their talk page, and whenever I try to bring more people into the RFC or reopen it elsewhere to get a firm consensus for or against anything, they call it "forum shopping".

I'm not sure what to do, or where to place this, I can provide more diffs if needed (diff cataloging isn't my specialty, i'd have to look back), I just want to solve this problem (NPOV between the two codes) and move on. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I stopped editing American football articles 2 days ago to avoid you. As to discussing you on another user's talk page, I was asking his advice on taking you to ANI. He recommended against it. There's no issue left fo me to discuss here. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of what i'm talking about here. I wished I never would have to say this about another Wikipedian, because I see it as incivil, but I need to be honest: I don't want to be around these either of these two anymore, as they don't want to solve the issue, but I want to still solve the issue. If BilCat wants to give up on trying to find a compromise, that's fine, I can't stop him. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is now a parallel thread on ANI Rodhullandemu 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I moved it to WP:WQA a second ago as well. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The American football articles and soccer articles should use the same approach. There's no reason to have wikipedia pretend that soccer is the only "real" football in the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Internationally it's the most common usage of the term "football", though; American football, as the name implies, is generally only referred to as football within America. In any case this content discussion is irrelevant to AN. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire discussion is content-related, and should all be sent back to the article talk page. It seems like the soccer fans are trying to squelch dissent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 28 September 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.

User:66.217.112.3

• 66.217.112.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also uses 66.217.112.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and perhaps other IPs) has been told repeatedly information from blogs, Twitter, IMDB and anything else that can be edited by anyone are not valid sources. This user keeps trying to introduce "fan speculation" into Law and Order: Criminal Intent and other Law and Order articles about show cancellations, new shows, etc. User has been warned repeatedly, but ignores warnings or is uncivil in return. Was warned 9/13, and stopped editing for until today, when he posted another "fan speculation" section, and cited a ref for another section that was unsupported in the Law & Order (franchise) article. Trista (user-Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about edit filters

Can admins see what an editor's attempted edits are when they are blocked by the edit filter? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can generally accomplish this by using the "examine" or "details" option from the Special:AbuseLog and relevant revision.   Thorncrag  01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Not very legible, is it?  :) But at least it's there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD's generally closed too soon

This is a general complain, not aimed at one editor, so I post it here. Many editors, especially many admins, close AfD discussions early (hours or even days early) without a good reason (real "Snow" or "Speedy" closures). I am not claiming that the outcome would have been any different if we had let the discussions run a bit longer, but the current standard of letting AfD's open for at least seven days was achieved after some fairly lengthy discussions. I noticed the problem with it when someone added a day too early to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and Mathbot automatically indicated that only 16 of the 78 discussions were still open, half a day before the full seven days would expire.[2]

Looking at the actual log for 8 September only, I see that the first one was closed some 16 hours early, the second, the third and the fourth nearly two days early (as were the sixth and the seventh and many others by the same closer), and also by other people this one and this one and this or this. Oh, and this or this. And this one, after 4 1/2 days. The vast majority of the 62 discussions already closed, where closed hours to days too soon.

I'll notify the three editorsd with the most early closures of this thread, but could everyone who closes AfD discussions please respect the minimum time of seven full days? Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any disputed AfD should run the full 7 days, but I'm not seeing how a closure "16 hours early" causes a problem. If some editor intends a thorough dissection or a heroic re-write, it seems inadvisable to wait until the last few hours. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I check things listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, so yeah, had not realized there was a problem with things being listed too early at that page. Someone should go ahead and fix that page for future reference. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, that doesn't seem to be the problem, since you lowed many pages from the log for the 8th, which isn't listed there yet. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, some of those may have been relisted already, and thus were at AFD for longer than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I only close from User:Excirial/Dashboard. I didn't realize that the listings included those earlier than they should be closed, although the nature of the list should have told me. (In fact on the top of the /old page it says "This page contains Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the deletion process") I'll watch the times as well as dates now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Boldly changed the text at the top of the page to reflect what it really is [3] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have revised this change to reflect the actual policy: that fthe page lists discussions within 24 hrs of closing, but only those that have been open 168 hours may be closed. It would be even better if we could rewrite it so it actually did list the ones that can be closed, the way WP:PROD indicates the expired prods. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, why are you all balming this incorrectly on the Afd/old page? This lists only pages where every single one has passed the seven day (168 hour) limit. It doesn't list discussions 23 hours early, it lists a day only when the most recent discussion is at least 168 hours old. I have reverted the incorrect changes to the text of the AfD/Old page. Please check such things before making such statements. Fram (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I regret to have to admit that some of the examples above are my closings. I should not have closed them when I did. The reason I did so is the pernicious effect of instruction creep, and the effect of seeing what everyone else does--in practice I seem to have been looking at areas on the page where most of the articles are already closed, and following their examples by closing others nearby. I've previous been trying to fight this, and protested rather vigorously to the individuals, but in view of the insistence of one or two of the regular closer who have refused to change their ways, I seem to have unconsciously decided to join them--some of this may have been the understandable but not really good motive of trying to get my share rather than be foreclosed in this area by those who refused to follow the rules designed to allow cooperation.

But I see nothing on the above list that needs to be reopened to prevent error, either mine or the others, but anyone is I think free to do so.

I suggest we enforce this strictly, unless a SNOW close is appropriate in special cases and can be justified. The justification of a SNOW is like IAR--no good faith editor who wants to object. There might be one other special case: a BLP where the continued discussion is harmful.

I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours.

I think we should clarify the relistings to indicate that a relisting must be for another 7 days. There are too many examples where one is closed after a single additional person has spoken. If we need to send out a message we need more time, it is simplest and fairest being for the same amount of time. If we already need to wait more than 7 days, no harm is done by another 7. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be ashamed of following the crowd and closing some AfDs early. At all. But what you describes certainly confirms what I have said before: If there is a rule not to close an AfDs early, but it is not followed, then it creates bias of a kind that I would prefer not to see: Admins who decide it's not all that important for themselves to follow the rules strictly have more influence on AfDs than those admins who insist on painstakingly sticking to the rules. Hans Adler 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I agree with the sentiment, but not your take on relistings. Relistings do not need to be for seven days, and in many cases should not be. If one additional !vote validates the outcome, then a close is appropriate. If discussion is ongoing and progress is being made, then yes, discussion should continue. A hard and fast rule on relistings is unneeded, in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. If someone really cared that much about an article, they should have commented in the first week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, the {{Proposed deletion}} template includes a hard-coded timestamp; when the proper amount of time has elapsed, the template itself changes the visible text to highlight that "This article may be deleted without further notice". We've used similar functions for templates associated with the Arbcom elections (changing pages to open voting at the correct moment, for example). Could the AFD template be amended to show how long the page has been in existence? If the AFD is created with the nomination, then a template could add a "Don't close me early" flag until the current time is precisely 7 days after the first timestamp. Even better, the {{afd2}} template is substituted, to format the debate. We add a timestamp to that, so that the nomination is timestamped. Then, the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, normally invisible, could display a notation under the title if the elapsed time is less than 7 days - or a different "This debate has been open 7 days, and may be closed shortly" notation once the elapsed time has gone past 7 days. Either way, we could retain the highly useful WP:AFD/OLD listings while avoiding early closures. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns voiced by many and have also noticed this problem. If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. As a partial solution, I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy to add the following to deletion policy: "Administrators may without discussion undo any closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed." Comments are welcome on the policy talk page. Additionally I support any templated timestamp solution as per Ultraexactzz's proposal.  Sandstein  20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I was waiting a week, but I wasn't. That needs to be cleared up, but the above proposal makes sense. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good solution, but it would be even better if admins had a place where they can find all AfDs that need closing, and only such AfDs. Then the problem would disappear automatically and we would prevent tensions from building up between admins. Hans Adler 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to make a template on an open AFD add the AFD to a category exactly seven days after the AFD has been started. Ucucha 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of using a category rather than a list. It seems appropriate for the purpose. Hans Adler 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the AFD2 template adds a timestamp, then REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD could add the category if CURRENTTIME=TIMESTAMP 7 days. We've already got the REMOVE template in place (it adds debates to CAT:AFD), so no need to add another invisible template that would need to be removed on closure. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

At first glance, this report has had the effect that the editors most responsible for these early closings have stooped this (thanks!), only to be replaced by others. These were closed after this discussion started, so... 14 hours early, 16 hours early, 13 hours early, 12 hours early (and many more by the same editor, who I'll notify), 5 hours early, 14 hours early, 14 hours early, 8 hours early, 8 hours early, and some more by this editor as well. Basically, this AN discussion has replaced the three editors most active in closing discussions early, with three other editors doing the same... Fram (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful and wait the full 7 days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(addition) Let's admit here: closing AfDs is fun. It's either like whack-a-mole when you have 10 delete !votes in a row, or more like sitting in the judge's seat with a controversial AfD; both are pretty amusing. A typical AfD cycle for a day's log goes: 25% are speedy closed, SNOW closed, withdrawn, or closed after 8-12 days (for relists) well before the 6 days. Next to go are the whack-a-moles, which comprise another 25%, in the first two hours. Slowly throughout the day some trickier AfDs get closed (again 25%). (This is where, admittedly, I do most of my work, after the moles have already been whacked by someone else.) 15% get relisted. Finally, the 10% is the nasty part that actually makes it into the -8 log: it's either annoying long or it has around five disparate !votes (the gray area where it's too many to relist and too few to call a consensus). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wade through the coding this afternoon, and (hopefully) have a template add-on that will timestamp the debate when it is opened, list it as "Scheduled to close at (TIMESTAMP 7 days)", then - once that time passes - list it as "This debate is eligible for closure". Once the debate is either A) no longer included in CAT:AFD or B) included in Category:Relisted Deletion Debates, it will remove the timestamp. Consensus, above, is certainly strong enough for a trial. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely a guilty party on this one, closing some that were at 6 days and X hours, rather than 7 days. As a general rule, I guess, we all need to know where we stand on UTC-- in my case, I'm 5 hours behind, so at 7:00 this evening my time, it's Saturday on Wikipedia. If I was in California, 4:01 pm local would be 0001 hours UTC. I pledge to be more careful about this. Mandsford 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the guilty list and considering that there are now several threads about this it's surprising that this wasn't bought up at my recent RFA. In my case it was because I was closing from the 7 day log. That's the log I do relists from and while there it only made sense to also close any clear unambiguous keeps. Later as I gained more experience I became more mindful of the time it was posted and not just what log it's on. However, I still think that administrators should be able to use their best judgment in such cases. If a debate is close and/or still receiving comments then it should be left to tick out the full 168 but does it make sense to leave "borderline snow" AFDs where everything that is going to be said has been said and nobody has posted anything in 3 days open just for the sake of process? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for timestamp on AFD2 template

I've gone ahead and coded a timestamp function for the {{afd2}} template - the code can be found at User:Ultraexactzz/Afdtimestamptest, and a sandbox example at User:Ultraexactzz/afd test. The afd2 template is the template that actually formats the deletion debate. The code will take the timestamp ( 7 days) at the time the debate is formatted - this becomes the time of the nomination, and the 7 days sets the time after which the debate may be closed. It then compares the current time to that timestamp. If the current time is prior to that of the timestamp, a small notice gives the scheduled closure time (in the form "This debate is scheduled to end at 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC).") If the current time is after that timestamp, the notice becomes a standard-font bold "This debate has been open for 7 days, and may now be closed by an administrator.". I have not added categories, though this could be included as appropriate (and if there's consensus to create a Category for debates ready to be closed). I also am unsure how to remove the notice if Category:Relisted AfD debates is present; it might be that removing this parserfunction becomes a step in relisting, for now. The notice at WT:AFD points discussion to this page; should we make a request there as well, or just note that I'm calling the question? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Minus the by an administrator part :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea, but as for the implementation, I think {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} is a better place for it so that the "can be closed" note will be automatically removed after the debate is closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, generally. Maybe we do both; we use the AFD2 template to enter a parameter (the current timestamp 7 days) into the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template, and then have REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE call that parameter when deciding whether to show "Debate scheduled to close at" or "This debate may now be closed". This has the virtue of not requiring the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template to be substituted, since debates are shifted in category all the time - we get a lot of bad inputs or custom categories, which put the debates into "Not yet sorted", and then someone changes the template to reflect the correct category. For example. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The relisting script will have to update the template and either change the timestamp or a relist parameter or both. There is no parserfunction, AFAIK, that tells if a page is in a category. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that relisted debates are as much of a problem. To the best of my understanding, a relist means that at the time of relisting, there was no clear concensus; if there is a clear concensus 3 days later, I see no reason not to close it - it had its full 168 hours, and the result is clear. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cases of unanimous consensus

I am going to give an example, below, and pose a question:

1. Something was nominated to AFD.
2. It has no objections to deletion.
3. No one has done anything to demonstrate notability.
4. The AFD has unanimous comments from individuals, all who have commented, with, Delete.
5. Duration of the AFD since time of nomination is 6 days, 23 hours.

In such a case, is the discussion above, stating that admins are forbidden from ever closing such AFDs early, even under obvious WP:SNOW provisions, in unanimous cases? -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that an administrator should be able to use his best judgment in such cases. Both of us work off the 7 day "relistable" log and it does make some sense to go ahead and close the slam-dunk keeps and deletes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But here's the problem: 6 days 23 hours ... 6 days 22 hours .... 6 days 12 hours .... 6 days 1 hours.... 6 days 5 minutes.... This is one of the times when a clean cutoff rule is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the case of: 10 unanimous comments in favor of Delete, no objections to delete, no one commenting keep, no sources in the article, the article is a completely unreferenced BLP page, and it has been 6 days and 1 hours? -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins are forbidden from closing even such AFDs early by current policy ("at least seven days"). Slippery slope problems aside, that's because somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours. The only possible exceptions to the seven-day-rule are, AFAIK, WP:CSD or WP:IAR (that is, situations where following the seven-day rule would be positively harmful to Wikipedia or members of the public). This would include unsourced, potentially libelous BLPs, but not much else.  Sandstein  12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps my view on this is clouded by the fact that until recently, I could only close "keep" and only for slam-dunk (or nearly so) cases. Deletion is more permanent and harder to undo and it's more likely that someone may show up at the last minute with a source then then it is for an 11th hour damning rebuttal on a borderline snow keep. However, there are some clear cut cases in the delete department such as this one. (borderline G3) That probably could have been closed at day 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that closing AfD's a bit early is harmful. As Sandstein said, "somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours" - yet what if an editor provides sources after 7 days and 1 hour, once the article is deleted? Then the difference is the same. A well-reasoned keep !vote should have the same bearing on an article's inclusion no matter if the discussion is active or has been closed for 3 months. As long as closing administrators recognize this, deletion becomes much less permanent. I certainly don't think AfD's should be closed before 6 days (in order to allow discussion during every day of the week), but a flexible closing period after that time seems fine. A 168 (24×7) hour listing period is fairly arbitrary anyways - how long do they list AfD's on venus.wikipedia? :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have what you describe: a hard line minimum duration and a flexible closing period afterwards. The only difference ist that the hard line is currently set at seven days, as agreed per community discussion, and not at six days as you propose. The point of this thread is to get people to comply with the hard line minimum (which is of course arbitrary, but it has to be set somewhere).  Sandstein  06:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So I think the point of confusion (for me at least) is that, without careful examination of the current hardline duration, one might assume that AfD's can be closed on the seventh day, when in theory, they should be closed no earlier than the eighth. It's similar to how the 17th century spans from 1601-1700. Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing, for example, should be pointing to the discussions of one day earlier. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I've made that change. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Having an article that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria stay on Wikipedia for 23 additional hours is not much of a problem either. The advantage of having a non-arbitrary dead line is that it reduces uncertainty, confusion, and unnecessary discussions. (Some of the arguments in this discussion seem to assume that editors are checking their watchlists 24/7, yet many editors are active only once in a week or even less often.)  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As well as curtailing the time open for debate (we chose seven days specifically because access to Wikipedia is often on a weekly cycle, especially when weekends are taken into account), the rush to deletion also means that certain admins end up closing all the debates. That's partly why I gave up closing AfDs: other admins were 'cheating' by closing them early, and ignored my requests not to. Seven days should be a bright line (excepting CSD and blatant IAR issues), and those who breach it should be sanctioned. Fences&Windows 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, would you also consider WP:SNOW a blatant IAR case? For example, 4-5 days, 9 keeps with a strong basis in policy, maybe one other delete either not based on policy or with a good counter argument? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IAR should only be invoked when following the rule would be harmful to Wikipedia. In the case you describe, no harm would be done by waiting until the full seven days have elapsed to close the AfD, and so it should not be closed early.  Sandstein  14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR doesn't actually say it needs to "prevent harm", it simply says ignore rules which prevent you improving or maintaining wikipedia. And keeping an AfD open when there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it passing is a waste of the community's time; why not close it? The existence of WP:SNOW and the fact that many, many AfDs are closed as WP:SNOW seems to indicate that there is at least partial consensus that it is an appropriate interpretation of WP:IAR, and I don't think this is the correct venue to build consensus on whether or not WP:SNOW is an acceptable reason for closing AfDs early. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We can disagree with respect to SNOW/IAR cases, but there are many AfDs being closed early that do not fall into either category. These are the main problem here, I think.  Sandstein  15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree there; admins do have a certain degree of flexibility with WP:SNOW due to WP:IAR (there's always discussion with the admin / DRV if others disagree with an AfD, and further discussion is likely to be needed if WP:SNOW closes are to be challenged in general), but the discretion of the closing admin isn't infinite; withdrawn nominations with no support and WP:IAR should really be the only reasons to close early; as discussed above, the 7 day period is set at that for good reasons. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is room for some template magic, here, and that might help give the full 7 days, but this edit should fix most of the problem. Debates will now be listed at "In Closing" only after a full 7 days have elapsed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I thought I was the only one who used WP:CAFD; guess not! :) It may take a little while to get all of the AfD closers on the same page (pun not intended), but we can be lenient as far as sanctioning until then. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why even SNOW cases would need to be closed before the seven day mark. Even if there are a bunch of editors !voting keep and no editors !voting delete, I see no harm in leaving an AfD discussion for its full seven days. I understand that you can IAR even if you're not preventing harm (as Giftiger wunsch pointed out a few posts up), but what's the real point in this case? I suppose to avoid drawn-out discussion, but if an AfD is snowing, I feel like a lot of users wouldn't feel the need to even !vote... I personally am in favor of having a cut-and-dry policy for this, such as waiting 7 days in all cases. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban

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.

Resolved

 – There is zero momentum for altering the topic ban at this time, and it is getting "snippy" from both sides. I am closing this to keep it from getting out of hand. --Jayron32 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I have an "indefinite topic ban" for what was believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. It has been almost three months now, wondering if this can now be lifted? --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the relevant discussion? → ROUX ₪ 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

General Sactions imposed on Obama Related topics and quite a lengthy history behind it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Based on a quick look, oppose lifting the topicban. → ROUX ₪ 21:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Block log has multiple Rigthwing conspiracy blocks. Ron Paul POV pushing at ANI, birther fun at ANI, and Climategate 3RR board posting with PA at 3RR noticeboard. I am convinced this Topic ban is for your own good. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not true, look at my block log for yourself. You only show your own bias.--Duchamps_comb MFA 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose...based partly on a quick look as well...but also because the request seems to indicate that the user still believes that they didn't do anything to deserve a restriction in the first place. --Onorem♠Dil 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to have discussed it (lately) with the administrator who imposed it. You should discuss the issue with NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) before bringing it here. It is at least conceivable that he may be willing to suggest some standard for good behavior after which he would be willing to rescind it or commute it to a finite period of time. As others have said, if you're not willing to recognize that what you did was wrong, there is no reason to remove the ban. --B (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets get the story straight, If you look at the log you will see (I have been treated unfairly in my opinion). [4]

There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given an indefinite.

The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist.

Time line of edits that lead to topic ban: My first eddit as of 00:04, 4 July. [5]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [6]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [7]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July. [8]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [9]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [10]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July. [11]

I stopped editing the article as of 01:37, 4 July; I was blocked as of 08:00, 4 July. So for 6.5 hrs. I had no activity, I walked away with consensus from the talk page to not add any of my information or refs. Is this not how wikipedia is supposed to work? I would also like to add I had no warnings of any kind from the blocking admin or anyone else. Since when do we give topic bans for 2RR?--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR is not the only thing you can do wrong at Wikipedia. The entirety of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines does not reduce to 3RR and nothing else, the fact that you keep returning to the lack of 3RR violation as proof of innocence in regards to your topic ban only reinforces to me the need to keep it in place. If you are genuinely interested in why you are topic banned, you should read WP:TE, and if you can explain how you will STOP doing the the things listed there, then you may have something. But claiming that you are not guilty of a violation you are not accused of isn't going to win any points. Try actually addressing the problem instead of redirecting. --Jayron32 05:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I am guilty of 2RR, pushing the flag pole, poor sourcing with worldnetdaily.com, and possibly below average writing skills. I many times edit in political places where it makes me enemies. I have learned to use a 1RR personal policy to keep from being so combative. However if you look at my argument how others who were topic banned from Obama, it is clear I have done nothing even close to the others who received an "indefinite topic ban". So I am asking the ban be lifted with time served 3MO. --Please explain to me how no prior topic block, no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given, is this how topic bans work? Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence dissenting voices?--Duchamps_comb MFA 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You show a long term issue with pushing fringe view points on BLP pages, Violating WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP not to mention as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please review WP:AGF as well as the statement "Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence dissenting voices?" seems to characterize it in WP:BATTLEGROUND. You shown a troubling and disruptive pattern thus a topic ban was administered. Again discussion with NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) is your best option at his point as he made the ban rather than coming here behind his backThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted on his talk page this morning [12] thank you for the good faith. Ok, I miss spoke I should have said,"Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence users who add material that is counter/objectable to other users and their POV?" Or something like that. Again thanks for trying to stereotype me and my actions and misrepresenting them.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any evidence that Duchamps comb can be a constructive contributor in this topic area, or indeed any controversial topic area. "I haven't been as bad as other people" is a singularly terrible rationale to appeal a topic ban; if there are other editors who edit like he did, I would ban them as well. NW (Talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already said I see/know what I did wrong, admitting fault. As well said I would stick to a strict 1RR policy in the future on Obama related articles, what more do you want from me? It may be a "singularly terrible rationale" but I am seeking fairness, to treat one user more harshly than others seems to signify to me the actions of the admin MAY have been too severe or politically motivated. If I am wrong please explain to me how no prior topic block on Obama pages (or any other), no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given, is proper wiki admin procedure...--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can claim that you are admitting fault if you keep claiming that you're only being topic banned to silence your POV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not exactly what I'm saying, it is more complicated than that. I do believe I have admitted where I have went wrong, and how I might edit Obama related articles in the future with 1RR. I have respected the Ban for almost 90 days now. However I do feel compared to other editors who were banned form the same topic I was judged more harshly.

I bring up the second point as I feel admins have too much power in topic banning, as well it is easy to email an uninvolved admin/buddy to issue a ban on a user who's political views you disagree with. Here is one example with user Hkwon who was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Administrator_Fut.Perf..27s_self-issued_topic_ban_to_User:Hkwon According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. So, Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion? Abuse of power can happen, and what better way to silence minority voices than topic banns. [13]--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground, you continue to talk about there be conspiracy to silence based on the actions of a Admin who is not Nuclear Warfare. You have been involved in three seperate incidents Birther, Climategate, and pushing a Ron Paul POV. Those are three separate topics where admin Intervention was required to sort things out. Several Admins have agreed with his evaluation; neither is this about your POV. We have Admins from every Political, religious, Scientific, and Ethnic Background and every level of commitment to those ideologies on the spectrum. Their only common threads are:

• Respect for the Project
• have a degree of Trust from members of the community
• agree with the five pillars of policies

Don't tell me that anyone here is trying to Silence you because some of these people like myself are very close to your ideiology. The difference being they just know how to be civil and respectful of others which you seem to have trouble with. Thus a topic ban was correctly applied. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You continue to project on to me your feelings and incorrect misconceptions of my opinions and misrepresent my block log yet again. Somewhat unfairly bring up things from over three years ago. First off I have never used the word conspiracy. Nor have I said Nuclear Warfare was trying to silence me. Only that I FEEL I was dealt with more harshly than others. I simply used the illustration of the topic banning on Korean cuisine/dog meat to illustrate a point that topic banning could be used inappropriately, which you totally missed. You continue to insert the straw man. How about answering this question, explain to me how with no prior topic block (of any kind), no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given to me, and my "birther incident" contained no uncivil comments or even 3RR after Ihad walked away for almost 7hrs deserved an indefinite topic ban?--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You hadn't walked away. You were blocked for a week, and coming across your contributions, I felt that you had not been a constructive presence on these articles for a long time, if ever. Had I come across other editors with the same behavior as you (as I don't watchlist articles in that topic area, such a thing is unlikely unless I happen to run across it), I would do the same thing. Period, end of story. NW (Talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom has specifically granted admins greater power to enact blocks and bans in certain highly controversial areas, one of which is Obama-related articles. Second, your insinuations of people abusing their authority to enact PoV-pushing does nothing to encourage me that you've learned, so I have to Oppose lifting restrictions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Brother I wish it wasn't so [14] but usualy it is mob rule, birds of a feather stick together.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This should be closed. This is not getting anyone anywhere. Duchamps needs to abide by the bans or find somewhere else to play. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have abided by the topic ban now for almost 90 days, however the admin has not issued a term or time limit, perhaps he will, so I will not have to come back ever so often to hear others who only want to lynch me for past behavior, and not look to my positive contributions or assume an ounce of good faith about me...--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The time limit is indefinite. This means that it has no set end. When you can demonstrate that you understand, at a bare minimum, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, the community may decide that your topicban is no longer needed. Your comments here have indicated that you do not understand why you have been topicbanned, and see it merely as 'silencing of minority opinion,' instead of what it really is: preventing someone from inserting unsourced fringe conspiracy theory (and frankly, racist; were Obama fully Caucasian we would not be seeing any of this nonsense) garbage. → ROUX ₪ 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Roux, you have just totally crossed the line sir! Uncivil is an understatement, calling me a RACIST (you do not know what race I am, or what race I am married to). Then to add insult you call my efforts are garbage, conspiracy theory, and fringe.--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:23, 29 September 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.

Absolute Abuse by an Senior ADMIN (User:Varlaam) - Requires Severe Action

Resolved

 – Varlaam is not an admin, and had already been appropriately blocked for the interaction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Being a Senior ADMIN, (User:Varlaam) should have been a role model to others in assuming good faith. But he is involved in severe verbal abuse with User:YellowMonkey at Yellow Monkey's Talk Page. Following are the extremely abusing words he has used againg Yellow Monkey:

Where the hell were you when me and Dewaine turned it into a bloody table, eh?

Have you read the talk page yet? When were you in Vietnam?

Varlaam (talk) 11:10 am, Yesterday (UTC 5.5)

I am not a fucking American, and I used to live in Australia.

Where were you during the Vietnam War, eh? I found the first ever half-Vietnamese war film yesterday, put it in the table, and now you are fucking busting my balls over it, asshole.

Varlaam (talk) 11:19 am, Yesterday (UTC 5.5)

Try doing some actual work some time. Varlaam (talk) 11:20 am, Yesterday (UTC 5.5)

Try looking at the version of the page from earlier this month after Erik deleted the entire bloody list. Did you happen to notice that, eh? Varlaam (talk) 11:23 am, Yesterday (UTC 5.5)'

I request severe action against User:Varlaam to stop him from acting like this to other fellow Wikipedians. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 06:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Varlaam isn't an administrator.
2. He was blocked for the above personal attacks half an hour before you posted the above.

I'm not sure there's anything left to do. --Jayron32 06:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:Varlaam has been blocked, and is not in fact an admin here. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for de info. Just had a look at his talk page. 1 week block is too less for such a big abuse. Moreover this not the first he is warned / blocked. Also he defies by saying that he wont worry about the punishment. Then block him to not worry indefinitely . ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 06:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A block is not a punishment. If he acts unruly again, he can be blocked again. --Jayron32 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, indefinite does not mean "forever", it means "without limit of time", which is not the same thing. Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 29 September 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.

Topic ban proposal

Per RfC input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010), I am proposing on behalf of the multiple editors in good standing commenting at the RfC that the following topic ban be enacted:

"Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) is prohibited from using any community input process for proposing the removal or curtailment of display of any public-domain Rorschach Test images, broadly construed, until September 25th, 2011." Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I believe that there is community consensus for an indefinite topic ban for Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) on the subject of Rorschach Test images. Danglingdiagnosis is henceforth prohibited from adding, removing, or altering in any way the display of images depicting the Rorschach Test and from initiating or participating in any community input process to achieve this end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Process Discussion

• ps, Jclemens, you should have notified Danglingdiagnosis. I have done so. It might also be a good idea, in the interest of fairness, to notify everyone who commented at the RfC.→ ROUX ₪ 06:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, good catch. I do tend to rely on others' use of watchlists on topics and pages in which they have an expressed interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• As far as why the duration I proposed wasn't longer, it is true that consensus can change, and I'm really hesitant to propose an indefinite prohibition on any user bringing up a topic in good faith. In formulating the restrictions proposed here, I tried to balance the disruptiveness of repeated, essentially unchanged requests for removal vs. the WP:CCC principle. If the community, as judged by the uninvolved administrator who ends up closing this proposal, believes that a longer topic ban is appropriate, I would not oppose it. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • When/if it changes, either someone else will bring it up or the user can appeal the ban; if consensus changed then they should have no problem getting the ban lifted. T. Canens (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The most important two words there, Jclemens, are 'good faith.' Danglingdiagnosis neither brought the proposal in good faith, nor argued in good faith. Instead, he repeatedly evaded answering direct questions, preferring to use rhetorical tricks (such as somehow defining 'censorship' as 'releasing information') to try his case. He proved in this instance, and in the previous one that he is immune to actual logic or comprehension of policy, and is the poster child for WP:IDHT. → ROUX ₪ 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell DD absolutely acted in good faith here, working toward improvement of the article. He didn't seem completely bound to the notion of removing images as others above have claimed, and when the RfC was submitted for him, he was still in process of dialog with other editors, asking for opinions on what an RfC to improve the article might contain. Those aren't the actions of the closed-minded ideologue he's presented as. Roux above brings up IDHT, but in the end they were DD's arguments that weren't being heard, as evidenced by the total lack of interest in discussing them. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (sorry, ROUX, I editconflicted with you when trying to edit my statement)
  • Exactly as he did last time, he was attempting an end-run around the consensus on the talkpage of the article. Last time he pretended it was under the umbrella of 'involuntary health consequences,' citing also concerns about photosensitive epilepsy--which he then proceeded to blithely ignore in order to focus on his pet peeve. Doing so very deliberately and specifically was an attempt to bypass the extant consensus at the talkpage of the article in question. That is not acting in good faith. This time he tried to gain exactly the same result, via a different set of rhetorical tricks. He was seriously attempting to argue that releasing information is censorship, while preventing such release is not. That is not acting in good faith. You say he was engaging in dialogue to find out what such an RfC should contain? Sure he was. And quite deliberately ignoring everyone saying "There is no need to bring this, consensus has not changed here." DD's--and yours, I might add--intense focus on not listening to anything that disagrees with you is also not acting in good faith. → ROUX ₪ 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Again: DD did not submit this RfC. People were saying there was no need to bring this... so fine: he didn't. He was working to see if there was a compromise that could be reached, trying to find something that COULD be brought to find a new and better consensus. Maybe he would have brought the RfC anyway, but so far he was just working on it as a possible thing to "bring" if consensus supported it. Note that even after it was an active RfC he was having dialog with Xeno (IIRC) to improve the questions. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And again--you seem to be missing the salient point here--the consensus has been crystal clear for years now: the images stay. Period. End of story. He was told this the last time he tried to do this, and was told then that he was trying to sidestep consensus. The exact same thing happened here. And that is why he is going to be topicbanned, whatever the length of time may be, from doing it again. He has shown that he is unable to accept that what he wants will simply not happen here, for a very wide variety of reasons, no matter what rhetorical tricks and ignoring dissent he tries. → ROUX ₪ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • And again, that's not the salient point since DD did not suggest removal and seemed open to consensus building that did not involve removal. So arguing that the consensus was against removal is completely irrelevant... yet repeated ad nauseam. You've topic banned a guy for saying things he did not say.Crcarlin (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Roux is completely correct. Consensus has been clear for ages; this latest RfC was nothing short of disruptive and trying to promote his own views, which are obviously against consensus. I see no evidence that he is trying to find a compromise given that there have been multiple discussion over this same topic before, and none of them have been in his favor. He keeps trying, and refuses to accept the final decisions made. This sort of stubbornness is detrimental to the project and is only annoying. An indefinite topic ban is the only thing that will stop this ridiculous behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have taken a look at the discussion and closed it accordingly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you acted too fast here. Danglingdiagnosis should have been given a chance to respond. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Buried history

Since last year, the archives for Talk:Rage Against the Machine have been moved to Talk:Rage Against the Machine 1. Being that's the talkpage of a nonexistent page, it has been deleted 6 times. Could an admin go through the deleted revisions and merge them with the correct archive page (Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 4) so we have a proper full archive? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I removed the text that Cluebot placed the other day onto the talk page. I think I corrected an issue that was having the bot place the text on the erroneous page so we shall see in a day or so what is up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I already fixed the problem, so ClueBot shouldn't add more. However, we need to dig stuff up from the deleted history. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Except, I'm not sure which threads are supposed to be where on the page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone needs to go through and add back in the stuff still. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bomb Iran

Resolved

 – done Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please move Bomb Iran (parody song) to Bomb Iran please? I'd do it myself but Bomb Iran is protected; the (parody song) suffix isn't needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Short term Admin mediation needed at Canton Viaduct

I would like an admin to review the edit history of Canton Viaduct over the last week. Every time I make an edit, User:Doncram reverts it. Given that there is prior history of bad faith interaction between us at other articles, I would like to prevent further escalation if possible. A short term, unofficial mediation would be helpful. I will notify Doncram that I have made this request. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Geesh, this would be unnecessary. But, well, if Blueboar is asking for it, that is evidence that something is necessary. Basically this regards my request to him at User talk:Blueboar#Canton Viaduct that he not come on too strong for a newish, focused editor. I was actually encouraged that Blueboar could hear what i had to say and did back off somewhat (relative to his pattern of prolific article and Talk page edits at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, one of the main places i have had interactions). This is being discussed, and there is a wp:BRD type process going on. It would be helpful perhaps to get some other editors comments at Blueboar's talk page, but i don't see this as ANI relevant. However if ANI action were to be taken, i would hope for it to be strong guidance to Blueboar to chill. I will post notice of this new ANI discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues, where other discussion of Blueboar's behavior has occurred, and has seemed to garner some help from other WikiProject Freemasonry editors in related edits. I don't have time for further discussion now but i will return later. There is no urgent problem with anything at the Canton Viaduct article, and there is no urgent other problem which can't be discussed slowly over some time instead. --doncram (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't accept that there is a history of bad faith interactions on my part with Blueboar, or at least that there is no unjustified bad faith if that is different. Since Blueboar focussed on some disambiguation pages such as Masonic Temple and others that i had developed, i have been forced to deal with him on topic after topic, and I have disagreed strenuously many times. I believe in all or almost all cases where a decision was then reached, my position was supported by consensus of editors, i.e. each of Blueboar's many related AFDs has been rejected. At some point Blueboar began claiming there is obviously bad faith because of all the disagreement, but that is misleading reasoning. I have at times expressed some well-justified exasperation. And, here we go again. --doncram (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, considering in your last revert, you removed a reference supporting Blueboar's contention while restoring unsourced text, I can see how BB might be getting a bit frustrated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time. Doncram, it seems as if you are happily willing to revert any and all edits I make to any article we both want to work on... (while strongly objecting if I revert one of your edits). It is frustrating. Instead of edit warring this time... I am asking for an admin to step in. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm in as an involved editor, not as an admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Huge backlog of images tagged for speedy deletion

Hi.

There is a huge backlog of files that need to speedy-deleted building up and requires administrators' attention. These files are listed in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no urgency in processing these files since it makes no real difference whether the files are deleted or not. It does give us a chance to review the files in question, so it shouldn't be rushed. There are a significant number which will want deleting from here and from Commons.

The only Commons-related backlog which may matter - and which we don't have any really solid processes to handle - are the name clashes: the cases where an image here has the same name as a different image on Commons. Some of these are in Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons, but only a very few since this category is populated by manual tagging.

Supposedly there is a toolserver query that will generate a listing of all images - here - but I certainly couldn't get that to work and in any case rerunning the query every time you want to look is a bad idea. We should probably have a periodic report generated onto a page here in enwp. Likely someone with half a clue could do that easily enough. Fabulous virtual prizes await! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This backlog has been around for forever. It's not urgent, but admins should try to clear out one subcategory when they have spare time. It takes about 10 minutes or less for me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on cutting down the undated category; I don't know if I'm making any progress, but it can't hurt. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... "It takes 10 minutes" and "I don't know if I'm making any progress" leave me confused. I wish I could help... Alas. Fleet Command (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it takes ten minutes to clear out a subcategory. It also takes ten minutes for a new subcategory to be populated :/ /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about a category here backlogged by months when a related Commons category is nearly 2.5 years behind, although I have been working on it. Rodhullandemu 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That I can help. I'll review three files per day until this category is depleted. You admins can help eliminate the aforementioned backlog without undertaking much pressure: Every day, each of you admins delete one file from one of those two categories. How's that? Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Files don't need deleting surely, just reviewing to check the bot did the move OK. Theoretically,anyone who wants to use the image in an article could just check that the info is all ok, there's nothing hinky, and remove the tag.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "files don't need deleting", it means that you've got the context wrong. Files in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons need speedy-deleting. If an administrator delete one of them each day, soon these categories will be depleted. In the mean time, I'll review three files in commons:Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review. Fleet Command (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you meant the admins to delete files out of the category that both you and Rodhull had been referring to, rather than the categories you started the thread about. I like your approach though - everyone does one or two regularly, rather than one poor sod thinking 'I've got to sit down for three weeks and do this...' I'll try to do a review whenever I log on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people

Hi all. The above database report contains a number of BLPs that could either be sourced or deleted through the BLP Prod process. It could use some attention; does anyone want to take a look and possibly consider watchlisting it? NW (Talk) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by the extremely small number of items currently on the list. Either we are patrolling and correcting or deleting very efficiently indeed, or we have successfully taught potential user to source BLP articles. From my own patrolling of CSD, I think the second is not the case. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the bot just does not manage to catch everything. Still, it's usually a couple of articles every day. NW (Talk) 01:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, most new article creations that belong in Category:Living people aren't created with it and don't immediately get it added, although they nearly always do get it eventually. If the report used the category as a base, this alone could result in missing articles. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Different in URL case result in different pages

Hello,

If anyone tries to access same URL but in different cases, they are redirected to different pages. Its not the ideal behavior.

On web, human do type web address manually (sometimes) but don't remember the case. In such scenario, they should rather be redirected to right page instead of making the distinction between the cases (upper/lower) used to type URL.

For verifying the same, try opening the URL given below and you will be redirected to entirely different pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComponentOne [Correct URL] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Componentone [Incorrect URL]

Hopefully, it will help you improve the site.

Ankur.nigam (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is case sensitive, because different articles on different subjects may be under different letter cases. Wikipedia has LOTS of articles, and we want our titles to be as precise as possible. In the future, if you have questions of a technical nature like this, the better place to ask would be at either Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Jayron32 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. But, given that Componentone was a very old deletion, I made a new redirect to solve this specific problem. Courcelles 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been left hanging, reinstating for a reasonable response

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) wants to add trivial, and he hopes defamatory, content to the Katie Couric BLP article. His attempts were reverted by several editors. In talk page discussion here, the vast majority of editors rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the NPOV Noticeboard here, where all but one editor also rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the WikiQuette Noticeboard here, where he was again informed that his proposed content was trivial, undue weight and tabloid-ish. Now he is dismissing the consensus input from numerous editors, calling them a "mob" (see this edit summary), and he has chosen to edit war instead. His comments in his edit summaries, (...I am not going to repeat the explanation. Find it.) and (Discussion is over, no one contested my last statement for over a MONTH.) indicate a reluctance to resolve the dispute through discussion. A bit of help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:Hearfourmewesique notified of ANI discussion involving him.

OK, let's put this in proportion:

• Trivial – this word is being flung around like monkey feces, with no actual solid proof to it.
• Defamatory – it's a video depicting Couric making fun of the Palin family, as reported by multiple reliable sources, not a picture of her breasts exposed in a third world tabloid.
• Vast majority – this article is a fan club; there is not a single entry that counters the constant appraisals of her character and work that this article entirely comprises of.
• Mob – it's wikilinked to WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, again with the fan club issue.
• Undue – we are talking about one sentence of somewhat negative reporting within an article that's entirely biased in Ms. Couric's favor and tenaciously guarded by the "mob" I was referring to earlier. This is a technique that seems to have been well developed on Wikipedia: get enough supporters and anything can be achieved under the pretense of consensus. Luckily, User:Drrll (the one in "all but one" that Xenophrenic mentioned) has enough common sense to understand my point, as opposed to any other editor that has been "swarmed" by the myriads of comments that were intended to flood mine and Drrll's.
• My comments – those are my two final comments after sweating bullets over extensive explanations of the validity of my point, being repeated over and over again until I got to that point (of simply instructing Xenophrenic to start listening to me, instead of exhausting me with these techniques). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is strong support on the talkpage that the content has no actual value in her life story, user Hearfourmewesique is not listening and has been replacing the addition anyway, this has resulted in the article being locked. There is a consensus against the user and he should listen to those voices and when the article is unlocked in a couple of days if he again readds it against consensus, that would imo be disruptive editing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A look through Hear4's contrib list indicates that when he veers into political articles he's trying to paint certain people a particular way, and his "fan club" comments above are par for the course when it comes to editors who want to violate the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and here we are with the politics: you find whatever you can to try and make me look bad at any cost. Your "look" can be summarized in Couric and Michael Moore, to the latter's article a concise and neutral paragraph being added, with multiple reliable sources, on an issue that wasn't covered before I added that paragraph. Unless you can prove that I want to violate BLP intentionally, I will interpret this as a personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So just what was the point of adding a lengthy blurb about how Michael Moore supposedly supports the idea of a mosque on Ground Zero? Do you think his article also reads like a "fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly??? Wow man, I though you'd be wiser than that, being a veteran here and all... read the sources, he's proudly "shouting it" on his website! Having said that and the issue being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, it should be in his bio. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, does the Moore article read like a fan club article? I don't think so. And like pundits such as O'Reilly and Hannity, he thrives on controversy. Meanwhile, your continued attempts to make a mountain out of the Couric-Palin molehill skew the matter. That video didn't come out until long after the election, and there is no end of people who made fun of Palin in public, at the time, so the fact that she did so, in private, is nothing unusual and is undue weight in the article. As far as a "personal attack"... well, I merely read what you wrote earlier, and as a "veteran", I saw that it fits the pattern of many, many editors I've seen here who complain when they aren't allowed to put their negative trivial stuff into an article - for example, as with the siege of the Palin article during the fall of 2008, which I helped to defend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your position that you can add anything you want that you can find a citation for it the problem you are having. We are writing the life stories of living people and we should use editorial judgment as regards what has value in their life that is worth adding, if you find yourself in a minority that the content you desire to add is worthwhile and noteworthy that is the time to start listening, not the time to suggest all the people that disagree with your position are members of the article subjects fan club. Off2riorob (talk)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Far more important in the grand scheme of things is that despite all the initial hype, Couric and CBS News have yet to make a dent in their ratings deficit - a fact which actually is stated in the article. I wonder if a "fan club" article would be likely to mention that fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "lengthy blurb" is a short four-sentenced paragraph (just finishing the Moore thought). As for Couric... this might seem trivial, but none of you are considering that it's an indication of her being biased against Palin, a fact which influenced the interviews, prompting Palin's supporters to see it as being from the most negative perspective ever. Declining ratings are nothing compared to that. Nowhere is Coric's personal agenda mentioned anywhere in the article. She's not a neutral reporter and this is a clear influence on her work, which is seen by millions of people on a daily basis. Is any of that mentioned in the article, even when supported by multiple sources? No. So... yes, it's a fan club that happens to mention poor Ms. Couric and the declining ratings she can't raise... sniff sniff and sad puppies.

P.S. Just for the record, I happen to agree with her on the Palin issue; I believe Palin is one of the most incompetent political candidates the US has seen in years. On the other hand, I'm not a TV reporter and I'm not influencing masses of people based on my wording. Again: all I want is for the article to be a bit more balanced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. If you don't understand that, or cannot understand how your editing has taken on that quality, you should not be editing the article at this time. Please consider this a final warning from an uninvolved administrator to cease and desist. NW (Talk) 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:GREATWRONGS is a specific instruction to "only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources". I have supplied seven, and Drrll supplied one more, making it eight. Final warning? It's the first time we interact, pal, chill out.

To BaseballBugs, per WP:OSE, the fact many others were making fun of Palin at the time doesn't make it OK and/or trivial for Couric to have done that as well. Besides, she didn't do it in private, she was reading the script at her stand, with the camera being aimed at her; she just thought the camera was turned off. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear what Palin had to say about Couric also, but that wouldn't mean it belongs in the Palin article. Also, a fact being verifiable is not a ticket to inclusion in an article, it's merely a minimum standard that must be met before it can be considered for inclusion, especially on a BLP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Hearfourmewesique actually believes he has some damning "gotcha" content here, as evidenced by his mistaken assertion that Couric "thought the camera was turned off". In fact, Couric asks and is told that they are filming during the first 24 seconds of that video footage, and she even does the customary 3.. 2.. 1.. sound-check countdown before launching into her read-through, which she promptly interrupts with the exclamation, "Where the hell do they get these names?" There is actually nothing defamatory about that video footage, and Couric wasn't "caught" doing anything other than learning for the first time about people with names like Trig and Track that live at the far fringe of our nation, eat mooseburgers, hunt caribou, and leave 90% of Americans scratching their collective heads and asking: WTF?

When, in an effort of compromise, I left the trivial content in the article, and expanded it a bit to describe just what Couric was making fun of, Hearfour reverted those edits, too. Apparently, too much information for the reader ruins the "we caught Katie doing something baaad" aura he was trying to push, and shows it as trivial. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountain-out-of-molehill stuff. A lot of Americans wondered the same thing. Maybe she could have asked a softer version of that question during the interview. Like the time Jay Leno asked Frank Zappa why he named his son "Dweezil". Frank's answer was, "Because I wanted to," and that was the end of that discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to reply to a point made by Hear.. It appears he is claiming that the incident shows Couric's bias and provides context for the infamous Palin interviews that came after. The sources do not support this -- they merely remark on the trivial details already mentioned. Anything more is from (unreliable) Palin supporters with a grudge. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're claiming that Palin supporters are unreliable – because they're Palin supporters? Why would they even bother getting upset unless something in Couric's portrayal of Palin wasn't all kosher? Have all Palin supporters unanimously decided to scapegoat Couric on an empty basis? Your logic has more holes in it than a bagel factory at 5 AM. Most of these sources point at the fact that the interviews followed shortly after the video was shot, and were seen by some as an extensive smear campaign. Yet I'm the one accused of a smear attempt because I'm stating what's covered by several press outlets... huh? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

post-ANI

Hearfourmewesique is now tagbombing the article: [15] and his edit summary shows a combative, battleground mentality. Can we take a definative action here, and stop this since he does not appear to wish to change his own behavior? --Jayron32 03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mentioning moving this from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640 to AN The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Hear: Yes, the pro-Palin, anti-Couric sentiment ("extensive smear campaign") appears to originate from right-wing blogs which are not reliable (especially for BLP). You say you're working for balance in the Couric article -- what other criticisms have you discussed on the talkpage and/or added to the article? Surely there is more substantial (and objective) press coverage of her journalistic credentials, for instance, when she took over the news anchor position. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(Remark: the following comment was made before PrBeacon added his reply above.) Call it what you wish. The article is biased and I'm sick of this game. I'm not trying to reinstate the YouTube issue, but the article is still written from a non-neutral perspective and the least of my rights is to tag it as such.

To PrBeacon: I would love to try and find whatever you want me to find, but fist I need to know that the consensus won't eat me alive, just like here or on the Michael Moore issue. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to exercise your rights. You seem to be taking this as a personal crusade, as though your personal rights are somehow what this is about. It isn't. This is about creating an encyclopedia. --Jayron32 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm uninvolved here. If there is any more edit warring on the article about either the "trivial" content or tagging, I will re-protect the article and block whoever is edit warring against consensus. I don't care which way the consensus goes; whoever edit wars against it will be blocked. Consider this the only warning to all parties involved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32 (talk · contribs) – comment on content, not on editors. I have no personal crusade, but I'm feeling like I'm being subjected to one. Show me the non-positive comments and/or reports in this article that would make it an actual encyclopedic entry. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? Could you parse that, cause I am not sure I understand your request? --Jayron32 05:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I wrote: show me where the balance is. All I see in that article is positive reviews, positive criticism and positive achievements and awards and whatever else is there to cover the positive outlook. Show me anything that counterbalances that. Oh well... judging by your later comments, you just want me blocked or out of the way, as long as the article is untouched. That's Wikipedia for ya. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed? How many fora does Hear4 have to hear from before he gets blocked for edit warring? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am of a similar mind. I recently reverted him (my sole interaction with him) so I'm out, but at this point he's running through WP:TE like it is a to-do list. I would not object if something were done. --Jayron32 05:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He was recently blocked after this thread started at ANI - (Archive 640) Content dispute has escalated... Upon his return, he copied it here with the new title you see above, "I've been left hanging, reinstating for a reasonable response" and tagged the Katie Couric article [16] [17] as POV -- which Jayron mentioned above (I inserted a break to show where it continued here at AN). -PrBeacon (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Review of rev-del requested

I've just gone on a rev-del spree. Faust (talk) changed username at one point: their old username was their real-life name. Recently off-wiki incidents have given them concern about real-life security and they asked me to take certain steps to remove the link between their real-life name and their current username. As a result I have revision deleted many edits to their talk page, to another editor's talkpage, and to another editor's talkpage archives.

Because this involved a user's security I felt it best to act first and ask for forgiveness later. Apologies. Obviously, if it's found that I've acted inappropriately I have no problem with my actions being reversed.

Anyway: revision deletions are available in my deletion logs: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=TFOWR

For obvious reasons I'd prefer not to discuss certain aspects of this matter at AN, but I'm happy to discuss anything via email.

Thanks. TFOWR 09:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't edits like this oversightable if necessary? I have no complaints with these edits. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. My concern is the number of edits I've revision deleted - it was some time between the original edits being made and my revision deletion. That's meant that I've had to delete 10-20 edits in a row, in some cases. TFOWR 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant "no complaint with these deletions"; sorry for the confusion. I think you've done the best thing possible here. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't taken your comment as a complaint, but thanks for the clarification! TFOWR 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the rename log entry, which was probably the most obvious link between names. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, Fetchcomms. I had discussed that with Faust, but avoided mentioning it here (per WP:BEANS) until I had a clearer idea how acceptable this all was. I think at this point all of Faust's concerns have been addressed. TFOWR 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to block this account and deletion of the userpage

Resolved

Could you please block this account indefinitely without autoblock and delete my Userpage and my talkpage? Thanks in advance. -- Andreasweber (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has done it, so I guess it is too late to ask why. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask him on his talk page or email him, but I see no reason not to grant the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered this old Pre-SUL-Account and now i can forget about it since it's kind of deactivated. If it would have been possible to delete it entirely i would have done it. In dewiki it is kind of usual to request an account do be blocked in order to deactivate it. Thanks again. -- 85.176.135.99 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Wrong Version

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.

This is reaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT levels. Admins are not going to act unless good faith efforts are made to civilly discuss this with other parties involved. There is no evidence that has been attempted. There is nothing more to do here. --Jayron32 05:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi all. I have done very constructive and time consuming edits to Pata Khazana, a page that lacked sources or references, was very biased, inaccurate and a disgrace to Wikipedia, but immediately these guys began reverting my edits completely. User:Sommerkom: [18] 169.232.246.46: [19], and User:Tajik: [20]. I requested page protection [21] and User:Airplaneman did it. I asked Airplaneman that he protected the wrong version but Airplane replied by telling me that he doesn't feel like helping me and the person who deleted my constructive edits was "lucky." [22] Can someone please help straighten this up. Thanks. Btw, the page was created in April 2009 and veyr few edits were made before me [23] and as soon as I fixed stuff in it all of a sudden the edit-war began. I thought this was very interesting to let you know.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the link's at WP:WRONG. Lagoo, please please discuss this with the people you disagree with. And you didn't notify anyone of this thread (you're supposed to; try {{subst:AN-notice}}). Airplaneman ✈ 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think people with such behaviour will listen, it's waste of time to discuss with them. It has been tried before by someone but they refused. See Talk:Pata Khazana. More importantly, I have nothing to discuss with anyone. My edits are fully sourced.--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, you haven't tried yourself. Please try it. Airplaneman ✈ 01:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to also read the WP:AGF guideline. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I provided complete books as sources but ALL my sources were totally removed. For example this book covers the entire article and it along with all the rest of the sources (especially an original copy of the manuscript in the native language Pata Khazan pdf) were totally removed when my edits were reverted. Now you have an article that has nothing cited. Even my linking of pages was reverted.--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is going to help you if you do not try to discuss it with the editors who disagree with you. Arguing about this is just a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So discuss it with the users. If you have nothing to discuss, you have nothing to add. Semi-protection would not have helped, as it only blocks IP addresses and users less than four days old and/or with less than ten edits (see WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and WP:SILVERLOCK for relevant info pages). Airplaneman ✈ 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is entirely and absolutely required that you at least make a good faith attempt to discuss this with them on the article talk page or their individual user talk pages. You have not done so. Please discuss on Talk:Pata Khanzana. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Don't bite the newcomers. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing here but just explaining that the wrong version is protected. I have no idea how to start a discussion over there. What should I say to them? Can you help me out please?--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As stated earlier, this will get you nowhere. Please go and talk (that's what a talk page is for). Airplaneman ✈ 01:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Say to them what you said where. Present evidence of why you think the info you added is OK, and do this civilly. It'd be a good idea to notify them on their talk pages about this discussion and the one you will start. Airplaneman ✈ 01:32, 1 October 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.

Socks?Confused user

1. RomDolce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last edit was 08:57, 2 September 2010
   
2. Kumpayada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first edit was 13:51, 22 August 2010
   
3. Kumpayada ! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not a registered username)
   
4. Kumpayada My User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not a registered username)
   
5. Society01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not a registered username)
   

• Hello to all Admins and Abusefilters! I've got a question to ask of you, when it comes to a potentially problematic user creating more than 1 account, what is your view like? Now, as I understand it from looking into the contribution history of the two main active accounts (1.RomDolce & 2.Kumpayada), the User:RomDolce claimed to have forgotten his password and so he created a new account (Kumpayada) but somehow later in his statement, he claimed (on the page of an unregistered account name User:Kumpayada !) to be able to login again as RomDolce. Also, most if not all of his edits are quite problematic given that his comprehension of English is not that good yet he claims to have a professional level of English. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are the multiple accounts being used abusively? You have said that the user publicly aknowledges the connection between them; what are the accounts doing, besides existing, that is the problem? Running multiple accounts is allowed, so long as the use of multiple accounts is not to avoid scrutiny or break rules. I'm not saying that something shouldn't be done, just that I'd need to see more evidence of abusive use of socks. --Jayron32 06:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me that 3, 4 & 5 are non-existent user (I've just speedied all three for CSD U2) but his edits are quite worrisome at times. Can someone please leave him a note to advice him to stop his nonsense of creating pages of non-existent users? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Kumpayada doesn't look like it is being used abusively, but RomDolce's edits are definitely problematic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Homer, I beg to differ because if you look carefully into Kumpayada's contribution history, you would noticed a similar trend developing now, same shit of not providing edit summary when called upon and not discussing with others when conducting controversial moves. Seems more to me that his behaviour is that of a little boy who does what he fancies here on WP than a mature adult trying to help or improve, correct me if I got it wrong. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"wikipedia aint that reliable so u shouldn't copy and paste from it" - ring any bells?

Just reverted a vandal edit which included the above phrase, and I'm sure I've seen it recently in vandalism by other editors too. Ring any bells with anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems more or less like relatively common vandalism from people who seek to discredit Wikipedia's reputation. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry

A question has arisen concerning the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt which, until some hours ago, was in the article Theodore Roosevelt. It's not precisely an admin matter, but it does concern what is and what isn't original research in respect to the coat of arms. I'd appreciate some eyes at the discussion, as well as suggestions about appropriate places to post a notice like this to get some more participation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I posted notices at WP:ORN and the talk page of Project Heraldry. Discussion should be centralized on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

 – WP:AIV clear for now GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a sizeable backlog at WP:AIV. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting caught up now. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism I've come across but don't know how to fix

The page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li_Kung-lin_001.jpg seems to have a vandalism issue, as it contains an attack on another user halfway down. Oh, and apparently it has an "expression error." I'm on Wikipedia so rarely that I doubt I'd derive much benefit from learning how to fix this (were it a normal page, I'd likely blunder about, clearing out the unwanted text or reverting the page to a previous edit or something), but I thought that this ought to be fixed, and so I hereby bring it to the attention of those who may be better capable of addressing this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.252.56 (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see either an expression error or an attack there? → ROUX ₪ 08:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. I also don't see any recent edits to the page, its Commons page, or any of the articles it's transcluded on. The only thing I can think of is that somewhere a template was vandalized and it's been fixed since then. —Soap— 12:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Might have been commons:Template:City, which was apparently vandalized and then protected. Ucucha 12:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

commons:Template:ISOyear too. I could still see the (particularly nasty) vandalism on a few pages before I purged them. Ucucha 12:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And it appears the revisions have been Revdeleted. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Closer needed at :Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll

Has been open over a month, and participation has tapered off so a close seems in order. I was a participant or I'd do it myself. Have fun! Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look, and decided to participate instead :) T. Canens (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unable to create talk page

I tried to add WikiProject Tags to Talk:Nguyễn_Thái_Dương and got an unauthorised 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.

Why? It seems that Nguyen Thai Duong was redirected to Nguyễn Thái Dương yesterday, but didn't/couldn't move/redirect the talk page. Can someone fix up the disconnect please. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I wonder how many false positives those title blacklist rules produce. Ucucha 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot platform

As some know I am developing a bot platform and I like to see if the project received wide support before continuing. d'oh! _talk 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is backed up

Resolved

 – No longer backlogged GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that bad now. There are 2 user reported, both of which are marked as {{uaa|b}} ( Not a blatant violation of the username policy.); there are 5 bot reported - 2 {{uaa|m}} ( Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear.); 1 {{uaa|b}} ( Not a blatant violation of the username policy.); one {{uaa|wait}} ( Wait until the user edits.) which appears to be a Star Wars reference; and one uncommented. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The backlog is pretty much clear now; I've moved the ones which suggest waiting until the user edits or worth keeping an eye on to the holding pen, and marked a couple as non-vios / removed a couple which others marked as non-vios. The only thing left are the two I've marked as non-vios, pending confirmation by a second opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Dilma Rousseff A clear example of admin abuse. --Ftsw (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you've posted to both WP:ANI and here? Shubinator (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Increase in the edit count? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasK - after he uploaded a possibly copyvio joke image of Obama. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barackobama.jpg. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Zarapastroso

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.

Ban enacted per WP:SNOW. Tiptoety ^talk 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm here to propose a full de jure ban on Zarapastroso (talk · contribs). This troll has been using socks and IPs to put the word "scruffy" over and over on dozens of pages, and now seems to be planning another attack. User:MuZemike has stated on his talk pages that the IP ranges concerned are too busy to softblock, let alone hardblock, so I'm proposing a de jure community ban to make it easier to immediately revert his edits without question. (example diff) Anyone agree? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. Clear intent to do nothing but cause disruption. The Thing // Talk // <font.color="#0A5">Contribs 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban as proposer. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Don't know if I really have a say but I support as the dude just wants to cause problems.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Obnoxious edits.--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban; additionally, don't take the uyser's word that the IP addresses can't be blocked - have a checkuser check this one out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban as being a victim of his trolling. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why don't you just ask him to stop? Do you think he will start vandalizing again? What is his motive? I use a BlackBerry and I was blocked because of this idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.22 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment the above user is probably Zarapastroso. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. And there's no factual basis to believe your accusation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.20 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Then create an account at home, then log in on your Blackberry. Also, please sign your posts. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I use Wikipedia on an account already, I just edit sometimes as an anon IP from my BlackBerry because I'm a nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.19 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: BlackBerries do not have their own special IP, they are a part of a range and their IPs jump. The so-called vandal could very well use any and all IP's in a certain range. I think my phone is in the same range area. Therefore, people who aren't causing problems appear to be a vandal and are thus affected by blocking a single IP from a cell phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.20 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's AGF here, folks. I happen to also agree with the IP, and I already mentioned this on my talk page here.

That aside, I direct people to this abuse report I filed the other night. Again, I'm a bit skeptical on the efficacy and success rates of abuse reports and cooperation with ISPs, but I have a feeling this person won't be stopped unless the ISP yanks the plug on him or the university he attends sanctions him for off-campus misconduct, assuming his school has such a policy. –MuZemike 18:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support to make it "official", although he's essentially banned already. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Do I supposedly know this moron from somewhere or was this just for kicks? HalfShadow 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I remember reverting a few of this user's trolling with scruffy. Derild4921☼ 02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm one of the users that this troll affected, and I think a ban would probably be the best thing to do in this case. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 02:20, 4 October 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.

User:Gavin.collins. Stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of policies

The conduct of Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is currently being discussed at RFC. The conduct issues alleged are "persistent, tenacious editing and other unhelpful discussion behavior in policy/guideline discussions about notability and other topics." Gavin has refused to respond to the RFC, citing the non-disclosure of the draft RFC before it was posted [24]. A read through the evidence on the RFC/U will give a fairly clear picture of the past history.

Unfortunately, the conduct which brought about the RFC has not improved, and I feel that it has gotten worse. Gavin has over the past weeks made several hundred edits to Wikipedia talk:Notability, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, where he has persisted in advocating views which are at odds with the community consensus, and refused to accept that community consensus is against him. Moreover, some of the positions he has advocated are so absurd and out of line with well-established practice, that I am questioning whether he is sincerely arguing for them in good faith, or whether this is an attempt to achieve a relatively more moderate position in an Overton window fashion.

Among the things he has advocated recently is that current policy prohibits editors from sourcing lists with multiple sources. Gavin goes further than this, he says that current policy prohibits editors from updating lists until the entirety of the updated list has been published elsewhere. For example, adding Barack Obama to List of United States presidents is a "bastardisation" of the list, and an act which "would be sackable offence in any accademic institution" [25]. Nobody has supported Gavin's view that current policy prohibits us from keeping lists updated, yet Gavin has insisted that "its policy" and that "there is strong evidence that it is supported" [26]. (Note that this is not "Policy ought to disallow..." but "Current policy disallows...". The former is disagreeing with policy, the latter is misrepresenting policy.)

It is difficult for other editors to back off from discussing with Gavin, because Gavin has a history of editing policies and guidelines to fit his view when the discussion has died down. See for example this edit to Wikipedia:Article titles in June.

I find that Gavin has violated a number of policies here:

• civility violations by openly mocking the people who hold different views than him on inclusion policies [27], and casting spurious aspersions of WP:MADEUP violations [28]. Comparing the update of a list with "plagiarism" and a "sackable offense" is also intimidatory and incivil.
• Gaming the system. At WP:GAME#Examples, I think #4, #5, #6, and #7 are especially relevant. Also, a editor who "resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." is explicitly listed as a sign of a disruptive editor.
• Failure to respect consensus.

The current situation has become intolerable. The two notability discussions have the potential to affect thousands of articles and need thorough, sincere, and open discussion. Instead, editors are being sidetracked into having to rebut the positions by Gavin, again and again and again. Several hours have been wasted on responding to each of Gavin's 200 posts which more or less are a reiteration of his unyielding position which the community has rejected.

Gavin has previously been warned that his actions are disruptive, and that AN notification may become necessary [29], since that warning only yesterday, Gavin has made 16 more edits on WT:N continuing to insist on that point. Gavin's refusal to respond to the RFC and moderate his conduct has also led to discussion here where there is a general agreement that firmer measures need to be taken, the disagreement being whether it should go to ArbCom or here to AN. At this point binding intervention is needed to put an end to this, and I am sorry to say that that means sanctions. My opinion is that banning Gavin.collins from the Wikipedia and Wikipedia_talk namespaces is an appropriate course of action. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I must differ with the opinion expressed above. The community has not rejected Gavin Collins' position. A small segment of the community would like to circumvent fundamental Wikipedia sourcing policy. Doing so is deleterious to Wikipedia. Gavin Collins has correctly represented the primacy of sourcing requirements at Wikipedia. The small group of editors wishing to skirt fundamental policy are the problem. The loosening of sourcing requirements only allows for flabbier articles, turning Wikipedia more into a discussion forum than an information resource. Wikipedia's fundamental role is the compiling of sourced material—not the creating of new content. Gavin Collins has represented the conservative approach to what Wikipedia is, opposing the erosion of principles that the small group of editors arrayed against him represent. Bus stop (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin argued today that "a "List of 95 notable theses about X" taken from source 1 through to 95 [...] would be a made up list topic", which is not al atll what WP:MADEUP is about. Similarly, he claimed that an article like List of bus transit systems in the United States should be deleted "as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research", and continues that it violates WP:CONPOL and again WP:MADEUP. Such statements demonstrate an "understanding" of our policies that is so far removed from the general view of them, that it is indeed true that the community has rejected his views. Some of his points have been supported by some people, but even those (excepting, apparently, you) have stayed far from his more extreme statements. According to Gavin, we are not allowed to have a list of all winners of event X, based on a published list that goes e.g. four years back, combined with newspaper articles for the last three or four winners. This would be madeup, a bastardization, a homebrew, and so on and so forth: this would be subjective original research. If you believe that this is correct according to "fundamental sourcing policy", and that the majority of the editors would agree with you, then good luck to you, but you are wrong. Fram (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I replied to Gavin after I posted that warning, I didn't feel it correct to start this thread myself at that time. However, I totally agree that a namespace ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk is necessary. As the RfCs and his conduct since indicate, Gavin is unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that his point of view is a very clear minority viewpoint on anything, and he continues to beat a dead horse over and over again, to the exasperation of nearly everyone else involved, filling talk pages with endless pointless discussions. Having a minority viewpoint is not a problem. making suggestions based on them, and arguing for them, is also not a suggestion. Making virtually the same arguments over and over again, even when it has become abundantly clear that they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting adopted, is disruptive though. I think the current RfC says it all, really... Fram (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what is conservative about his statement "I agree that this section does not reflect the consensus of the RFC, but I disagree with the view that no one agrees with this viewpoint, for these ideas have only articulated in the last few days, and it will be a long time before they are even understood, let alone accepted or rejected.". Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to stress: those of us from Gavin's RFC are not seeking to have Gavin banned from WP-space because he has an incompatible viewpoint - everyone is free to have an opinion however extreme to the consensus is may be. This issue is strictly about Gavin's behavior and tactics of late, highly emphasized in this whole list/notability discussion. He's used these tactics before but in discussions on somewhat envelop-pushing ideas that weren't terribly far from consensus (read: reasonable ideas that may have been accepted under the right circumstances), as not to really call attention to this behavior (see the Kender mediation, for one). But now from several areas of late (climate change, article titles, and notability and lists), the more extreme and departed his ideas, albeit potentially good ones if we were a different type of work, are from consensus, the more and more his SOP of behavior is seen and how problematic it is.

Again: tl;dr: this is not because Gavin holds a contrary position; that would be censoring. This is because Gavin does not know how to consensus-build when his contrary position has been flatly rejected, to the determent of others due to time spent defusing that. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins has already been the subject of two previous RFCs and temp bans. Neither of these caused him to change his behavior significantly, only the pages that he edited and the Wikipedians that he fought with. Now there's a third RFC, which he has announced that he will ignore.

Having lost several disputes with others over the application of WP Rules and Guidlines he is now engaged in a war to change those rules. Once he's finally succeeded in winning by Stonewalling and Beating a Dead Horse he will then be able to go back and reopen those disputes using the version of the WP rules that he has personally rewritten. I believe this is an example of WP ownership, only instead of feeling ownership over any particular page/subject he seems to be applying this toward the whole of Wikipedia, or at the very least any page that he chooses to edit.

It is therefore my belief that a complete and long-term ban for Gavin.collins from the whole of Wikipedia is absolutely necessary. Since he refuses to be civil to his fellow Wikipedians and adhere to the rules then what other choice do we have? A topic ban simply won't work. He's shown many times already that he has no problems changing topics and continuing with the same behavior. Perhaps when his ban has expired he will decide to come back to Wikipedia and play nice with others. - Seanr451 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to hear about this from Gavin Collins: he is not planning to join this discussion[30]. Any specific questions (or remarks, encouragements, whatever) you have for him can probably best be posted directly to his talk page. Fram (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the contention that Gavin has been uncivil. He may have a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I find no evidence of incivility. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, in general - it's borderline incivility that wouldn't merit individual review and certainly alone would not merit any block. When added to the big picture, it is something Gavin should be aware of that, for example, sarcasm in the middle of a long protracted discussion due to his insistence is not helpful to building consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus that Gavin has been a disruptive editor but we need to be 100% clear that the problem is very specific. It's important to focus on WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT, WP:GAME (namely the "stonewalling" provision), and perhaps WP:OWN applied to policies and RFCs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is allowed to dissent. But when WP:CONSENSUS is the primary goal of any discussion, repeating the same dissent over and over becomes disruptive to Wikipedia. It causes good editors to burn out, withdraw from the process, and even exit Wikipedia in frustration. It also prevents policies from adapting to new circumstances, which means that long-standing problems prevail (at best. Sometimes they even get worse!) By no means am I saying that people should be forced to give into the majority like some kind of twisted thought police. But EVERY participant is obligated to show SOME kind of movement during a discussion for the sake of building a WP:consensus. An unwillingness to negotiate is troubling. But an unwillingness to negotiate, stated repeatedly and forcefully, does real and noticeable damage to the sense of community. What should we do? I think a topic ban would be extreme, but I would prefer it to nothing. I sincerely think that a warning from an uninvolved administrator could have a powerful effect. It would establish that the community does not condone his tactics. Once that is established, I'm willing to assume good faith that he will improve voluntarily, and we would have a warning on record if he does not. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this on the theory that since all the previous warnings, e.g., this one, have been so obviously successful that we should keep doing the same thing over and over?

Personally, at this stage -- after all these years, three RfCs, and a long string of individual complaints -- I think that that rational people should quit expecting voluntary improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the RfC by BOZ and I, Gavin tried twice to get a highly valued editor with over 100000 edits banned on AN/I for not following Gavin's twisted understanding of policy and consensus. He subsequently went into full-on IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode on his talk page when asked to stop his attacks on the unfortunate editor in question. He has driven numerous editors off this site, as noted on the RfC. He now refuses to participate here because the issues were not discussed with him on his talk page, on his terms. This is classic Gavin - my way or the highway. Enough already. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here you will find the ban proposal and subsequent discussion with multiple administrators on his talk page, as well as the second ban proposal a month later which resulted in that subheader on the above referenced talk page thread. BOZ (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say it's just gotten ridiculous. Taking a position that can be called consistent with consensus only as a joke in poor taste, then trying to use unflagging tendentiousness to ram it through at the policy level and thereby enact sweeping top-down changes to Wikipedia practice... once is too many times, and this editor is way past once. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think doing an end run around the RFC is a great idea. And as much as I hate to play this game, it took a hell of a lot more to talk about banning/topic-banning certain notable individuals on the other end of the spectrum than what Gavin has done. I'm generally of the opinion that Gavin has kinda worn bare his welcome on notability topics writ large, but that is a nuanced problem that needs a nuanced solution. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Protonk in this case. In Gavin's second RFC, I recall one of the concerns being "If we limit him this way, then he will just go somewhere else and become someone else's problem." And, well, that's exactly what happened. Banning him from notability discussions will just send the problem somewhere else, so like Protonk says we need a more nuanced solution. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk here too. Gavin has a very specific problem and is not beyond becoming a productive contributor, unlike some other editors. The situations calls for a more nuanced solution than a topic ban, and I think BOZ has come up with one that is fair and focused. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal 1

Given the level of disruption, I think that a topic ban is appropriate. Here's my current thinking on how to word it:

"Except for comments made on his user talk page, Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or discussing any page or section of a page related to notability), broadly construed, for one year. Gavin.collins is additionally prohibited from nominating any list or article for deletion through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process during that time."

This would stop the endless, time-wasting "discussions" at WT:N and other pages, and would prevent him from carrying on his campaign by filing a long string of spurious AFDs. What do you think? Do you think that this is enough to stop the disruption? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any claim that user:Gavin.collins has done anything wrong regarding WP:N. He does seem to be on some sort of bender on other pages, so why is this the preferred solution? Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Frankly, you should look harder. The barest tip of the iceberg on what he's done wrong at WP:N is edit warring on a policy page. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  What policy? WP:N is a guideline. If user:Gavin.collins is causing problems vis-a-vis Lists, why not topic ban him from Lists, broadly construed, and see if his behavior doesn't improve? Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  God. I looked at my comment after I wrote it, went, "oh, lovely, I referred to WP:N as a policy, not a guideline", and knew this was the sort of wikilawyering response I was going to get. Well done. Hey, turns out, edit warring on guidelines is not really spectacularly better than edit warring on policies! Whoda thunk it? Anyway, I suggest you look at the RFC; the current charlie-foxtrot in context of lists is far from the whole story. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Abductive, I'm not finding your name at WT:N, where Gavin has posted more than 1,100 comments over the past two years. I'm also not seeing any signs of your participation at WP:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, where Gavin has edited the main page 100 times and the talk page 200 times just in the last month or so. Could it be that you aren't seeing how disruptive this endless repetition of his demands that we re-write notability standards to meet his highly unusual standards, simply because you aren't watching the pages he's disrupting? Disruption that's off your personal radar screen is still disruption, I believe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Back on May 12, I discussed the notability of small settlements with user:Gavin.collins. I have also argued with him on WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI and here I'm trying to figure out what he is talking about at WT:Article titles. Abductive (reasoning) 07:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal 2

I disagree with most of the wording -- it's too loose in places, too restrictive in others. My preference would be:

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from topics relating to notability, broadly construed, including the notability of individual articles, for one year. Violations of this ban may be enforced by standard escalating blocks."

If he can come up with other valid reasons to delete articles, there's no reason to ban him from AfD nominations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I (really) like the simplicity, but I'm not sure I understand it. So if Gavin nominates an article at AfD and claims a reason other than notability, it's okay? For example, if he nominated just any of the 50,000 "List of..." articles, and said that WP:NOT prohibited lists he didn't approve of, then that would be okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure the concept of "other valid reasons to delete articles" makes sense, given the definition of notability as what "determines whether a topic merits its own article". Given that, it seems like any participation in AfD whatsoever falls under "notability, broadly construed". —chaos5023 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the CSD criteria are safe, for example. "We formed this band and we're really cool" should not be grounds for blocking, for example. However, "Who cares if he's a 15-time winner of the X Award, it's just a genre fan award" would be under the above wording, in my opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense for it being fine for him to do speedy noms. Initiating or participating in an AfD, even if CSD criteria are involved, still seems like participating in something that's mainly about notability, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I prefer this.Second choice if the copyvio stuff is sorted out. It's simple so he can't lawyer his way around it. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weakest possible support: don't feel we need to use the "b" word yet. But I agree there's a problem and this action is preferable than watching the problem continue. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Hum ho. Whilst there's clearly an issue here, Gavin gets a ban whilst those who spam AfD discussions (which is clearly the cutting edge) are allowed to continue? *Sigh* Black Kite (t) (c) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I don't disagree, but isn't that kinda WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Spamming AfD is not okay, is disruption and should be stopped; this is a separate topic from Gavin's disruption. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I unfortunately agree with you Black Kite. I tried to propose something a little more lenient. Something that would be a model that we could use for other editors who have a similar problem. (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and should be treated the same.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would prefer that user:Gavin.collins get back to the useful work of nominating pages on non-notable topics, which he seems to have been neglecting lately. I find it remarkable that he is to be banned from AfDs when he is not accused of abusing that system. Perhaps he could be topic-banned from Lists for a while, but maybe the fear is that that would make him more effective. Abductive (reasoning) 18:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I do not believe this will be sufficient and that eventually a complete ban will be required. However, I readily admit that I cannot foresee the future and thus could be wrong. This proposal still allows for a block but only in response to his continued bad behavior, and does give him the option to voluntarily change said behavior. Seanr451 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Is Gavin a pain to deal with? Absolutely. Has he gotten entrenched in a dispute with people that refuse to acknowledge the triviality of their goals? Certainly. Was he right to request a block of AlbertHerring? Possibly ... the mass creation of stubs by bots is a horrible thing to do, and I'm amazed that the community tolerates it. Blocking Gavin basically gives the win to the people that are in the wrong, and I can't condone it.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We have to be clear: this is not if Gavin's interpretation (or anyone's interpretation) of policy is correct or not. It is sitting there pounding the floor expecting people to come to your stance when everyone else has agreed to move on with a completely different consensus, even when people try to reach out and get him involved. That is DEADHORSE and TE. I am very aware of a ban being seen as a form of censoring an unpopular viewpoint, which is why I'm not thrilled with this option either. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm just not certain that punishing tenacity is necessarily a good thing. I stay away from a lot of areas where Gavin charges in just because I'm older and can't take it any more. He tends to be spot on in analyzing the effect of policies and guidelines on articles, and his opponents generally don't bother to refute him: it's more a chant of "I don't like the effects of applying the guideline to my area of personal interest, so I'm going to act like it says something that it doesn't actually say". He doesn't move on to the purported "consensus" because he correctly recognizes that a consensus that defies policies and guidelines doesn't reflect project-wide consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree with Kww when tenacity is excessive it should be forcibly ended. Unfortunately in Wiki no response is the equivalent to agreement. This has the effect of never letting argument die as long as there is one oppose. No matter how overwhelming the consensus is ,bas soon as no one opposes they will claim that consensus has changed and make their changes. There comes a time to allow editors to walk away without fear of someone claiming a false consensus just because no one jumped up to force him back down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  I believe "tenacious" was accidentally used in some of the originating documents here when "tendentious" was meant. It's tendentiousness that's meant to be deterred, not tenacity. People refute Gavin effectively all the time; I have only seen him respond to this by a handwaved argument, possibly throwing around some debate or formal logic terms, amounting to a bald assertion of his own correctness, followed by continuing to reiterate the refuted point. This is certainly tendentious editing. (I think my favorite, though, was when he breezed past my own citing of long-standing Wikipedia practice by calling that practice excessively vicarious. There's an argument you don't hear in debate club every day.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I know the difference. I see Gavin as 95% tenacious, with the occasional lapse towards tendentiousness.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yea, yea, that's my fault :-P Anyway. I respect that Gavin is concerned with the problem of walled gardens and close groups of editors attempting to define consensus themselves - a concern that I agree is critical and certainly not an issue. The Kender mediation, in part, is a result of this. What is an issue is when the group of editors is a lot more diverse as at climate change, article titles, and the list RFC - very far from a walled garden group. Regardless of how "right" you believe you are, trying to continually push your point against a diverse agreement of consensus is purposely disruptive. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  There are better ways to deal with walled gardens too. It's a perfect chance for a wider RFC. Much more disruptive to insist you're right against 70-80% who say you're wrong. There's no right and wrong on Wikipedia. Only verifiability and consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Most of my interaction with Gavin was at WP:FICT. That "wider RFC" is probably one of the reasons that Gavin has such a bad taste in his mouth. Dealing with people that believe that only verifiability and momentary consensus matter and all of the existing guidelines and policies can be ignored gets incredibly frustrating. Once you have notability, verifiability becomes trivial, and without notability, verifiability becomes a tangled mess of original research, opinion, and easily impeachable sources. It doesn't surprise me that he's a bit burnt out.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough. But burnout is a reason to take a wikibreak, not to get disruptive. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  You might be onto something with this bad RFC experience. These long painful discussions actually teach us bad behavior. That filibustering is effective. That you can exhaust the opposition rather than work with them. That you can canvass a few people from a walled garden to build enough of a coalition to disrupt any effort to find a consensus. I wouldn't be surprised if Gavin picked up some bad habits there and I can't exactly blame him. But that's part of why I've been trying to push for a remedy that encourages Gavin to engage in better behavior, rather than just trying to pull him out of the situation entirely. If this remedy works, it's something we can use for future troublemakers at other RFCs. I would really like to see RFC behavior get better across the board, and finding a way to push people to work together would help that. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose without having taken other steps to temper the problem. I've suggested on the RFC/U an idea like the one below for independent admins to review his actions, increasing blocks when Gavin's overstepped TE, and eventually leading to a ban after 3 strikes. But that would a ban in general, not of specific areas, as that's almost akin to censoring; it would have to be all or nothing. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Abductive and Kww said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems to me that we need to pursue some other options before moving to the level of a ban. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Per Masem and Nuujinn, I think this ban discussion is premature. I'd rather let the RfC/U process run its course first, and I note that there is not, yet, consensus there for this proposal here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is close to what I proposed in the initial AN thread, but given BOZ's proposal below, I will call this second choice in case BOZ's proposal fails or does not work out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: work towards consensus or leave

The problem is that Gavin is not acting in good faith to build WP:CONSENSUS. He is willing to argue the same point for (literally) years until he gets his way, or scares people off from the discussion. He is otherwise basically WP:CIVIL and the closest thing to a personal attack he gets into is accusing people of trying to silence his viewpoint, which is usually an unfair characterization of people. I'd really like to see Gavin continue to participate, but in a more conciliatory way. So I propose:

An uninvolved administrator affirms that Gavin is not in line with Wikipedia policy on conduct, and gives Gavin a clear warning to stop anything resembling filibustering, stonewalling, or using argument ad nauseum to cause a negotiation to fall apart. The next time he finds his viewpoint challenged as being outside the consensus, he cannot continue to participate until he takes a straw poll on his viewpoint. If his view gains a consensus, the issue is resolved. If his view is not the consensus, he is expected to moderate his viewpoint to build a consensus or leave the discussion entirely. If he continues to argue the same point after it has been discredited, we will revisit this problem at WP:AN/I. If he refuses to put his viewpoint to a straw poll, we will revisit this problem at WP:AN/I. (Which will probably require a stronger action such as a topic ban.)

I believe this is the lightest possible way to resolve this issue. But I do insist on some kind of resolution. Action is preferred to no action. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the straw poll action; not that those aren't helpful, but it really should depend on the situation. What if he takes what he considers two different viewpoints (as presently occurring in the list RFC, claiming his Sept 24 contribution is a "new idea") even though everyone else sees them as separate? I would not have a problem with the admin stating "Gavin, I think you need to take a straw poll..." on a case-by-case basis. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most people would be able to see through a new presentation or new argument for an old idea. A warning would put Gavin in the hot seat. He knows that if he doesn't REALLY work towards consensus, he'll end up back here. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we been there, and done that, enough times already? Saying "I'll overlook the previous thirty-six rounds, but if you beat that dead horse for a thirty-seventh time, then I'm really going to do something" sounds like it should be spelled e-m-p-t-y t-h-r-e-a-t to me -- especially since we've said the thing, only with slightly smaller numbers, several dozen times now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Can someone produce an incident that resulted in Gavin being unequivocally warned against wasting everybody's time by overwhelming every talk page discussion he takes part in? I'm sure we haven't. Every other instance to fix the issue has failed because someone invariably calls for his head, a few editors show up to say that's totally out of line and unfair (which it usually is), and we go onward with no solution at all. We've tried the "off with his head" approach. How about we try drawing a CLEAR line that everyone in the community can agree with, and asking Gavin not to cross it? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean something like a section on his talk page that is titled "Some serious advice and warning" and includes language like "your mindset should be apologetic for wasting editor time and also for disrupting the actual encyclopaedic content" and "Personally, I am quite prepared to block you for disruptive wikidrama"?

I've already provided you with a link to that warning, and other people have provided links to similar warnings from other admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you're trying to help. But sadly, Wikipedia has become so polarized that an administrator message on a talk page doesn't do much if that editor has established themselves in the community. Take a lesson from what we're trying to teach Gavin here: that consensus sometimes means settling for less in order to achieve something, rather than asking for everything and making the issue last another 6 months. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm concerned that this would wind up just giving Gavin another go-round to do the same thing for another N months or years before his intransigence is again unambiguous enough to get yet another laborious process of intervention started. I would support this proposal if it seemed less vulnerable to that outcome. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's also the risk that we do nothing, because he hasn't reached the level of obvious policy breach that usually warrants a topic ban, and there isn't a consensus for it. Then he'd DEFINITELY have another go around to do the same thing, and we'd also say that there was no finding of wrongdoing last time because there was no topic ban. This is the motivation behind this proposal. To find a very soft but unambiguous way to put Gavin on notice. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Gavin arguing that adding Barack Obama to a list of US presidents is against policy shows that he's gone beyond obstruction to plain trolling. No reasonable editor could argue that position. A total ban from all discussion of policies and guidelines is needed to restore some semblance of sanity to these discussions. Fences&Windows 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

for anyone not following all of this, the link for the Obama discussion is [31] DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I, having too much time on my hands, have read this thread. Compared to other stonewallers around here, this guy deserves an award or something. Basically, "consensus" seems to be all about repeating your argument until those disagreeing drop dead. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

{NOTE: The details of how this proposal should be implemented need to be worked out if this gains consensus. While this could be used as written, I'm sure it is not perfect in this form. It looks like people are willing to support in spirit, but the details may need work. BOZ (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

Here is a modified and simplified proposal of what Shootwalker was proposing, mixed with some of Masem's ideas:

When a dispute arises between Gavin and other users on any discussion page (including user talk pages, policy talk pages, article talk pages, requests for comment), an uninvolved administrator will judge the situation and determine whether consensus has been reached, and if so close that portion of the debate. Gavin may not attempt to continue the debate, by reopening the closed discussion, moving the discussion to another forum or location, or restarting it on the same page.

If consensus is not reached, and Gavin is judged by a neutral, uninvolved administrator to be engaging in stonewalling, filibustering, or continually repeating his points, he must stop.

Edit warring from Gavin will not be tolerated, ever.

If Gavin is found to be in violation of any of the above, he will be warned on a first instance, blocked on a second instance, and banned from that venue on a third. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support not as terse as my version, but much more likely to have good results.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, this seems to be a reasonable approach as it does not censor Gavin Collins, but creates a framework in which his tendency to overwhelm other editors may be controllable. Also, it provides a sanity check for other editors engaged in the discussion by providing an outside view of the situation. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Again. Let's make the line in the sand crystal clear and remind Gavin not to cross it. His defenders believe he can at least do that, don't they? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think this might make him less tendentious, and we can all continue editing happily. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support as a good first step, even if more steps prove necessary. postdlf (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support I like it. Seems likely to be effective, and is a less extreme step than a ban. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Grants extreme power to these "uninvolved administrators". I can't waltz into a discussion, declare consensus, and "close a section of the debate", and I don't think any other admins should be empowered to do so.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have suggested a mentor, someone who is uninvolved *now* and thus would be a single go-to person that would become familiar in such areas. And I'm will to make that list really really hard to cross to avoid anyone gaming the system against Gavin. I'd also argue that this would be tracked as an editing restriction such that if this ban were to occur, the mentor would have to reapproach AN and says "ok, see all this, and I've warned and etc. and nothing's happening, I am suggesting a ban now" in order to get consensus on that final trigger. I would also say there probably needs to be counter-action. We cannot goad Gavin into tripping this without repercussions and that's again something the dedicated mentor could offer. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If Gavin gets a mentor(s), then I'd say that could replace the "uninvolved administrator" bit above. BOZ (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, that would be fine. Also, if a single person would have too much control, perhaps a troika would suffice. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kww, the admin won't be looking for consensus to wield power over the whole discussion. The admin will ask a simple question: is there a consensus for Gavin's view? If so, there is no problem, and the discussion SHOULD be closed. If not, then Gavin has to continue to work in good faith to build a consensus. Which means that if he engages in filibustering then he will be back here for a more severe measure. It allows Gavin to voice his viewpoint, but puts a greater onus on him to build bridges with other editors when he is clearly in the minority. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Better than the other proposals above. But will Gavin be getting a mentor? Is he open for mentorship? Bejinhan talks 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Fairly mild, but if it works, it is a reasonable way of allowing Gavin to contribute without disrupting and stonewalling. If it doesn't work, there are stronger remedies available. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support with either a mentor (if he agrees to one or three of those) or one or more uninvolved admins (note: I am not uninvolved). Fram (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request clarification As edit-warring is not permitted, can we officially declare a 1RR restriction on all articles? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would necessary, at least at this time. It seems that most of the problems folks have with Gavin's behavior are centered on talk pages, rather than article pages. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1RR on established policy/guideline pages (interpreted broadly, and NOT their talk pages) may be helpful. Gavin does sometimes engage in slow edit wars. However, this is mostly a side problem, not the key one. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...though, I suppose edit-warring can technically occur even if an editor is subject to 1RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support (considering cleanup as mentioned). Definitely better than an immediate ban but addresses the issue at hand. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Consensus Can Change is policy here. Restricting him from challenging consensus is not the same thing as restricting him from being disruptive, and restricting him from being disruptive wouldn't preclude him from challenging consensus. These proposals need to be thought out better because as it stands now there about 6 of them and it's one giant clusterfuck. -- ۩ Mask 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support in that I think it would be very worthwhile to have uninvolved editors/adminstrators judge consensus rather than those int he midst of the discussions. However, Consensus Can Change, so I'd put a time frame on how long until Gavin can protest. 6 months? Concurrence from another X number of editors (3?)? Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support As first choice if the copyvio stuff is sorted out. I have no intentions of kicking someone who is now firmly on the ground but we can't have a guy who drives people away from discussions in which they are participating in good faith. That's just not how it works, regardless of how much or little support Gavin's views actually have. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support In case the whole copyvio mess get eventually cleared. He must wait 6 months before "re-initiating & putting on the table again" a reform proposal that has been previous rejected by consensus. --KrebMarkt (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support This at least has the potential to reduce some of Gavin's problematic behavior. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2

First, an apology: I always got upset when people refused to see how disruptive A Nobody or Pixelface had been simply because they agreed with him, and I'm having the same problem in reverse. Still, I'd like to narrow the focus, and not wind up giving "uninvolved admins" extraordinary powers. I aso strongly dislike the idea of simply muzzling him on discussion pages: fighting for a losing cause (especially when that losing cause is the heretical notion that people should actually follow guidelines) isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, edit warring is generally unacceptable, and edit warring on policy pages is probably the worst form. Editing policy pages is also very rarely necessary. I'd like to simply restrict Gavin from editing policy pages. I'll act as a proxy for him: if requested, I will make any change to a policy page that he requests if I judge that there is reasonable consensus for his change. —Kww(talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

His interaciton on policy/guideline pages (not their talk pages) is not a issue, it's a symptom. As I've outlined in the RFC/U, Gavin has done this several times:

1. (possibly) Gavin makes a policy change (which is bold and fine)
2. Say "this needs to be changed for these reasons" (which is fine)
3. Long heated discussion ensues, Gavin's change is found to be the minority and not desirable. If Gavin changed the page, that change is reverted (fine). There may be a very slow edit war here (like 1RR across 3-4 days), but that's not disruptive or admin-needed action
4. Discussion dies down and lays stagnent for 7-8 days, usually as no one has anything else to say to Gavin's idea (that's SOP for any proposal...)
5. Gavin then and goes changes the policy again because "obviously" no one has disagreed with him so it much be consensus. That is the problem step, and that's behavioral problem, not edit warring.

I know exactly how Pixel and ANobody behaved on the extreme inclusionist side and I see Gavin doing exactly the same on the extreme deletionist side. Mind you, all three used different approaches, and in AN's case, clearly afoul of expected behavior. Gavin (short of the possible CCI problems below) hasn't done that but he has pushed his involvement in wide discussions beyond a reasonable point. I cannot disagree with the statement "fighting for a losing cause (especially when that losing cause is the heretical notion that people should actually follow guidelines) isn't necessarily a bad thing", but the problem that we have come to discover is that Gavin's interpretation of guidelines seems out of sync with the larger consensus. If you're trying to alphabetize a list and someone is blocking your attempts saying that C comes before B, you can't let that person block the progress going forward. Now, of course guidelines are interpretive and the like and not hard and fast rules like the order of the alphabet. What has been revealed in all of the latest issues with Gavin is that he has a vastly different view of what original research is as applied to source, article titles, notability, and so forth than the common point of consensus. That it, he is fighting to prevent OR introduction into WP (always a good thing) but using an OR definition that is more extreme than accepted (not good). And he's been told this and several examples have been fought through to show that his OR definition is extreme and inconsistent with consensus at the wide scale (not a walled garden). We cannot punish Gavin for holding that personal definition, or even trying to suggest we move towards that, but we need to do something when he endlessly debates about it with refusal to acknowledge his view is neither the current consensus nor gaining consensus. That is disruptive, and that's the goal of this community action, just to know when to say "I see my idea is not being considered, so I'll drop it and/or work towards consensus". Otherwise everyone's wasting volunteer hours to deal with Gavin. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Masem's probably right that this isn't the highest level of disruption, but it is unacceptably behaviour nonetheless. Further, if Gavin is prevented from readding his position to the guideline, and can find no one else willing to proxy (and thus affirm that his position is consensus), then that may stop the endless streams of disussion. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal but not by itself. The problem isn't edit warring but discussion tactics. Okay... we want Gavin and others to challenge consensus. But we don't want him to challenge consensus in the exact same way 3 times a day 7 days a week. We don't want him to back off for a few days and watch a consensus emerge among everyone else only to come back in with the same arguments. I know Gavin is not the first editor to do this. (Pixelface looks to have retired and A Nobody was surely banned for escalating further than Gavin did.) That's why I sincerely hope that we can try a remedy that works and can be applied to similar tendentious editors/debaters. I !voted for a remedy that I thought was less than fully effective because I thought it was better to find a WP:CONSENSUS than revisit the exact same issue 6 months from now. That's the kind of attitude I wish everyone had on those big policy issues and it's the kind of attitude I'd like to encourage in Gavin. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As with Shooterwalker, I support this but not alone. The WP:DEADHORSE issue needs to be addressed in some fashion, and I think the idea that being unable to directly modify policy pages will make Gavin unmotivated to filibuster and stonewall in discussions is too much to hope for. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My longest tie-up with Gavin was no where near policy, but on an article talk page where Gavin's near-unique interpretation of policy was endlessly debated. It is incorrect to see this as an issue related to WP: space in some way. Rather it is an issue about Talk pages, regardless of the space, that flows into both article and policy pages when there is insufficient will amongst the editors to stick up for the commonly perceived interpretation of policy. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Many copyvios as well

Now that he finally gets back to article editing, his first edits are introducing a copyright violation into an article: this is a near-straight copy from this, with one line completely unchanged and the rest slightly reordered (including the use of the exact same comparison that article made). Looking back at previous edits, the last one that added some text was here, and again it is a copyright violation, using the exact text from here (12Mb, don't open unless you need to...). He both times acknowledges his source, but straight or near-straight copying (not quoting!) is a copyright violation no matter if you acknowledge your source or not. Gavin types: "Owing to its uniqueness in terms of the intrinsic properties such as the proximity, relatively low visual extinction, extreme compactness and brightness, NGC 3603 is one of the best examples of a starburst region and since its discovery more than a century ago, NGC 3603 has been intensively studied" The source has "Owing to its uniqueness in terms of the intrinsic properties such as the proximity, relatively low visual extinction of only AV = 4 􀀀 5 mag, and the extreme compactnessand brightness, NGC 3603 is one of the most suitable Galactic templates of starburst phenomena in distant galaxies. Therefore, since its discovery more than a century ago,NGC 3603 has been intensively studied in many groups". Gavin edited the same article extensively, adding lots of data early in September, e.g. here. Sadly, this as well is a copyright violation, taken from here. Again, the source is acknowledged, but these are all copyrighted sources...

Considering that on checking three source-adding edits he made this month, all three are copyright violations, I fear that we have a serious problem at our hands, which may take a lot of cleanup... Fram (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if this is that significant, this needs to be handled separately from the above. (and probably takes priority as that is disruptive). --MASEM (t) 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

[32] is a copyvio from [33]. Any objections if I open up a CCI on this user? MER-C 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So the same happened at least a year ago as well... I don't think we have much choice but to open a CCI here, indeed. Fram (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to see more open CCIs, please do. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't gotten a chance to look at this, but assuming what you say is true (especially the part about this happening last year too), I think that nothing less than an indefinite block would be appropriate. NW (Talk) 13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this definitely caught me by surprise; I was not expecting to see a thing like this. But then when I think about it, I guess this is not that surprising... during the working phase of the Kender meditation as I recall, in order to avoid as much as possible any re-interpretation of the source material, it seemed like Gavin damn near just wanted to rewrite the article using only quotes and lines taken directly from the source material and, I had to challenge that and insist that we not do this. My memory may be faulty, but given this new evidence it seems to fit into a pattern. BOZ (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ. Gavin's interpretation of WP:OR is so extreme that it seems to prohibit summarizing multiple sources on the same subject. I wouldn't be surprised if he's using direct quotes from a single source because he believes anything else would be WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And WP:SYN, yes. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments like this, when the CCI-possibility was pointed out, is rather scary. At least with Darius (you know, the one affecting about 23,000 pages) , he at least attempted to clean (though far too little too late). --MASEM (t) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if this isn't the appropriate place to post this, but the possible copy violations are pretty severe:

• this is a copyvio of the source
• this is pretty much directly lifted from the cited source
• this is, IMO, a particularly egregious example lifted from a thesis

This is a mess. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001 MER-C 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have taken two of the articles listed by MER-C, History of science in the Renaissance [34] and Al-Baqara [35] both contained copyvios, with only very small changes in the text from the source material. Per BOZ and Shooterwalker, I think that a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR and ignorance of WP:C is the culprit here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit saddened as well, because I thought contributing decent content now and then to articles was one of Gavin's stronger attributes. I would like to take Fram for taking notice of this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, ironically enough, since he seldom edits articles, the number of articles that will have to be cleaned up is relatively small. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Gavin has responded to these allegations on his talkpage [36]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - although he blames Sjakkalle for this investigation, clearly others have shown just as much concern over this issue. BOZ (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that I am on a personal, bad faith, mudslinging vendetta against him to exact revenge on his delete vote on the Ellen Hambro article, where I supposedly have serious ownership issues. For the record, I have made two edits to the Ellen Hambro article, only one of which is substantial, and I haven't edited that article for nearly two years. (Nor do I have much interest in Hambro in particular, or Norwegian environmental agencies in general.) I have referenced the AFD several times, because it is one of the very few examples of a staunch delete vote on an article whose subject covered in a paper encyclopedia. The entire posting looks like an attempt to divert attention away from himself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that Gavin has removed the statement, and apologised for it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of his contributions seem to consist of failed AfD noms and prods. He also, once again, insists on deciding what the venue and terms should be before he wants to engage in any meaningful discussion about his actions. He is also engaging in blatant wikilawyering (again). Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And adding various templates here and there. It's a shame that it looks like most of the rest of his contributions are invalid. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

His follow up reasons are extremely unsettling; ignoring the copyright complaint for the moment, it is "my way or the highway" attitude that has persisted through all aspects of the RFC/U and AN and now the CCI charge that are(seems?) intolerable by the wider community. Gavin can wikilawyer all day that he is not doing anything wrong as there is likely nothing but essays to point out his behavior is at fault,. But, and the reason to be AN to get community consensus, is to show that, particularly when charged with violating a core contribution principle (copyvios), "my way or the highway" is not acceptable behavior if one expected to be a contributor to WP. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked (and unblocked)

I have indefinitely blocked Gavin.collins for copyright violations. I have offered to unblock if he recognizes what he has done wrong and offers to help clean up the copyvios. Of course, other sanctions (independent from the copyright violations) can still be applied in that case. Ucucha 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That was almost certainly going to happen. I've been considering it after seeing the discussion on his talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Having just about decimated the Accountancy article, I was just coming to ask someone to do that.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block. His attitude towards the copyright policy and contempt for those cleaning up his mess is unacceptable. MER-C 13:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask a devil's advocate question for those more familiar with how CCI is handled than myself: it seems to me that most of what Gavin has been shown to copy are direct (within a word or two) segments of articles, with attribution but without the necessary quote marks to make it stand out as a quoted section. I recognize that the examples I spot-checked that just adding the quotes doesn't fix the problem as there's prose form and word flow and all that would have to be dealt with, but the base question is: are we going overboard just because he didn't use quote marks? Again, I don't know CCI procedure that well, so if this is accepted as a problem, ok, great. The few CCI cases I've had a chance to look into is where there usually wasn't attribution and thus a more serious charge. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue, certainly from Accountancy is that he wrote no original text whatsoever. What he did was take two sentences from source Foo, and tweak a couple of words. Then a sentence from source Bar. Then a paragraph from Foo. Then two sentences from Thud...and so on. I deleted an entire five paragraph section that was entirely made up of copyvios from four or five sources, and another four paragraph section copied from three sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Up until the block he was claiming his interpretation was correct. Here is what he says now:

"Having re-read the Wikipedia:Non-free content, it does appear that I have "misunderstood" policy as Sjakkalle has pointed out to me in relation to the correct notation that is need to avoid copyright violations, and I appologise to Sjakkalle for biting his head off and shall strike my in appropriate comments from the record[5]. WP:Plagiarism sums up the Non-free content policy as follows:

"If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless duplication is limited and clearly indicated in the article by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations).

I appologise for this oversight. I am committed to rewriting offending citations where this is an issue, and I think most of these problems can be rectified with direct attribution where need be. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)13:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been told that before, but it's taken a block to convince him. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And...it's not going to help (mho) if he's doing things like [37] which is a straight lift of an entire paragraph from its own source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he provides the source for the plagiarized material seems to indicate he just doesn't (didn't) understand the concept of plagiarism. Doug, you say he's been informed about it before? –xeno^talk 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's discussed it before at Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the block notice, Ucuchna said "I will unblock you (and authorize any other admin to do the same) if you recognize the problem and commit to helping to clean up the mess in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001." Since Gavin's statement is such a recognition and commitment, I have acted on Ucuchna's authority and unblocked Gavin now. One might accusing Gavin on being late in recognizing this, but better late than never. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock at this point, but I point out Xeno's question to Doug; if this is Gavin's second warning on CCI, that's a larger issue. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm biased, but why is this even remotely a redeemable offense? It's mindboggling that someone who spent as much time arguing about policy as he did would not understand the basics of copyright and the most basic concepts of how Wikipedia works. Or is this unblock just tentative pending a further judgment as the copyright investigation proceeds? postdlf (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of chalking up the plagiarism to ignorance, rather than malice. –xeno^talk 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, we are talking about a few scores of articles with copyright issues, not several hundred, and so cleaning this up is a smaller scale operation than the one last month. (The vast majority of the articles listed in Gavin's CCI are results of the mass taggings in 2007-08, not copyvios.) Gavin reading and quoting the WP:PLAGIARISM page indicates that he understands what he did was wrong. I have a strong hunch that BOZ's analysis is correct: Gavin was so entrenched in his views of what WP:NOR implied that he thought that big changes of the text in the source would be a violation of that policy. I don't think he was acting in bad faith when he added those paragraphs, but acting on the erroneous belief that what he was doing was OK since copying small snippets of the source wouldn't harm the copyright holder. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That would be more plausible if he were a newbie rather than someone who's been around for three and a half years who has spent most of his time on here mired in WP policy. I don't doubt he thinks he's entitled to get away with it, but I can't believe anyone with his span of experience here could honestly think copyright law, or WP policy, permit it unless they had an infant's level of reading comprehension. At any rate, I think this is new grounds for a complete ban from policy discussions if (assuming the best) he has demonstrably no understanding of policy yet continues to spam discussions with his opinions of how it should be. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from (and to be honest, I've felt there was a reading comprehension problem at issue before, as with this), but I would object to pushing that line of thinking too hard. It's a bit mind-boggling and a fine refutation of the vocal minority who hail Gavin as the keeper of the one, true Wikipedia Way, but really, people are allowed to participate in policy discussion without fully understanding policy, and they kinda have to be. The sticking point needs to be the tendentious return to a position that has been shown to be not validated by consensus. Some of said positions being demonstrably illegal does bring the moral authority into question, but it's not being wrong, as such, that calls for intervention. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think the problem is that he's been so hooked on discussing meta issues rather than putting his ideas to the test on actual articles. If he had done that he would have realized that it's impossible to write an article in accordance with his understanding of policy and guidelines. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an easy way to settle this. Get Gavin to write up his viewpoint on WP:OR, and do an RFC at the WP:OR talk page. If the community accepts it, maybe the joke's on the rest of us. But if the community rejects it, we can ask Gavin to kindly WP:GETTHEPOINT and work within the community consensus. At that point, ignorance will no longer be a defense. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The last thing we should want is to give Gavin another forum to spam the community with his demonstrably wrong interpretations. Its sickening enough that he has wasted so much of everyone's time, with ideas that at first just appeared to be more conservative interpretations of notability guidelines, but ultimately proved to be incoherent and nonsensical views dependent upon copyright infringement. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Masem, I checked the archives of his talk page and didn't really find anything. Maybe I missed it. –xeno^talk 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See above, it was at Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes, not a warning. I note that another editor has said " Much of the text is neither brief nor properly attributed (i.e., quoted), and so needs to be removed and/or rewritten." -- see [38]. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - thanks for that. Now the question becomes: did he continue with his near-verbatim insertion without rewording or quoting subsequent to that discussion? –xeno^talk 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes is very enlightening on how his thought process got to this point. It didn't help that the person responding to the 3O request found in his favor that it was not plaigarism. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ again. I think there are quite a few policy misinterpretations in the 3O. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they did say "some sentences have been taken directly from the source and should be re-written or made into quotations to make the attribution obvious". –xeno^talk 17:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this thread from September might be informative about Gavin's views/understanding of copyright; he seemed to be saying that all lists (no matter how unoriginal and factual) are creative and thus copyrighted, but further implying that this is why we must attribute our lists to a source ("As regrads effort and copyright, all lists are creative, and all take effort to create, which is why they should be attributable to reliable source."). I responded that attribution is to show verifiability, that it can't cure copyright infringement if that's what copying a list would be; he made no comment on that. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Kender/Trim#Life_cycle and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Kender/Trim#Touching_base is informative as well. Gavin advances the theory that anything that is not sourced is OR, is disabused of this view, then advances the view that anything that is not sourced to a single source is OR. Disabused of that, he then argues for using nothing but verbatim quotation as a means of avoiding plagiarism. This problem with copyright violation is all tied up in his view of OR, rather than being an attempt to boost edit count, as is usually the case. I would ideally like Gavin to discuss how he would rework some of the deleted stuff, for example on Accountancy, so we can be sure he's got it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about in the above section. Thanks for not being as lazy as me, and actually going back to read that.  ;) BOZ (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's typically the next step in such a situations? I haven't dealt with any copyvios personally for several years now (and then, only with newbies copying and pasting whole websites) so I'm unfamiliar with the current process. I would hope at the very least he would be put on some kind of probation, with some kind of prior review of his future contributions to articles, and I would hope a very short leash on policy talk page spamming of his now-demonstrably false (and illegal) interpretations, not to mention some "re-education" of his policy understanding. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my "alternate proposal" above seems to have legs, so that will probably stick (in some form). Additionally, he has agreed to take on Kww as a mentor, to help him avoid this kind of trouble in the future. If either of those things fail, then things are probably looking bad for him. Otherwise, there's nothing else to do and he's free to go - at least, that's how I'm interpreting it. Now, if the people who manage copywright issues decide that more needs to be done, then that is up to them. BOZ (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: future issues with other editors

Something that frequently comes up in these AN/Is is that other editors have done similar damage to the encyclopedia (or worse). If we do find a remedy, I would like to add something to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors about how to deal with this specific problem. Namely, editors who cross the line between challenging a consensus one time versus filibustering, stonewalling, and argument ad nauseum. We haven't known how to deal with these problems in the past and I think we may have just found something worth emulating. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Gavin has accepted my mentorship regarding copyright and policy issues: [39]. I think everyone should let this proceed for a while, and we can see if more formal restrictions are necessary later. Feel free to notify me of anything he does that warrants special attention.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being cynical in public, but I hope that you have noticed that most of the problems are on "guidelines" rather than just pages designated as "policies"? Since hairsplitting is one of the long-standing complaints, I'm afraid that I don't see an agreement to seek help for "policy articles" as solving the problems at pages like WP:Notability or the list RfC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's helpful in combination with BOZ's proposal. Remember that much of the problem stems from discussion tactics and an unwillingness to engage in consensus building. As someone who cares a lot about WP:N and third-party sources I want Gavin there to provide sanity and balance. But Wikipedia is disrupted when editors resort to endless grandstanding and stonewalling that prevents us from resolving any issues. Either way thanks for taking on the mentorship role. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think having Kww coaching Gavin on copyright and policy issues is a good thing; Gavin seems to trust him, and I think that will go a long way. However, I share the concern whether having Kww in a mentor role is sufficient to address the concerns brought up about Gavin in the first place; Given that Kww has expressed his disagreement with the basis of the latest RFC (and thus, the majority of the complaint against Gavin), and was only one of two who opposed my proposal above (which has 15 people supporting, if you include me), and that I believe Kww is at minumum sympathetic towards most Gavin's views, this may affect substantially his impartiality in dealing with situations regarding talk page disputes. Therefore, I think we still need the ability to be able to seek out neutral, uninvolved admins in those situations, for the warn/block/ban. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good route out of this mess. For what its worth, I've offered to advise if asked by either. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note here - while I believe Gavin now understands Wikipedia copyright policy 'intellectually' (if you like), he seems to be struggling to work out how he can ever add content to articles operating under these rules. Perhaps if a couple of other users could contribute to the talkpage discussion....?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven DYK ban proposal

Closed. Further discussion may take place with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), and if necessary, users may file Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#.22Real-world_context.22. Ban proposal: DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is welcome to participate in reviews at T:TDYK or to post error reports about articles in queue for discussion at WT:DYK, but not to edit the queues, prep pages, or main template T:DYK directly. Support, as proposed (wording as recommended [40] by Rjanag). -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Obvious oppose, to the extent that my opinion matters. I've already conceded one point regarding appropriateness, and I refuse to concede the other point because it involves a matter of factual accuracy. DS (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Also, Cirt - I sincerely apologize for having accused you of violating WP:POINT in restoring that inaccurate hook; I did not sufficiently clearly indicate that it was inaccurate. My mistake. And I've already conceded the point about letting grotesquely-inappropriate hooks remain in the queue if I've been so lax as to not intercept them earlier. So what's your point? DS (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the apology, I accept, and it is most appreciated. This proposal was recommended previously at WT:DYK, both by Rlevse (talk · contribs), and by Rjanag (talk · contribs). It was not simply my original suggestion, though it is a sound one. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support, all this 'ban' really would be is a restriction on DS using admin tools to edit protected templates at DYK against consensus. Does not actually ban him from reviewing DYKs. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support I wanted to give DS the benefit of the doubt, but from my discussion with him (now rolled up at WT:DYK, see [41]) it has become clear to me that he doesn't even understand why editors are upset and doesn't understand what the point of this proposal is. He can't be trusted to exercise good judgment with regards to the DYK queues and therefore he shouldn't have the ability to override other reviewers' judgments unilaterally. He can participate at T:TDYK like everyone else. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Of course I understand; don't attribute motives (especially when you only have a part of the conversation). DS (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) No, you still don't understand what other users are upset about. I have already linked to the conversation in question. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Of course I do. You still don't understand what it's like to care about this project. <=== SHOCKINGLY UNFAIR PERSONAL ATTACK, MADE TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF 'ATTRIBUTING MOTIVE'; I DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT RJANAG DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. I did not respond to comments made in those eight hours because I was asleep; becoming angry at me for those is ridiculous. I have already agreed to the point re: proper procedure, and attempted to demonstrate this by using it to deal with what I saw as a serious error of factual accuracy (my point was addressed and ruled to be not a problem). DS (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support ban - because DS just went and removed another hook from the queue right after being advised by several users not to do that anymore without prior discussion. I had given qualified support to DS up to this point, but it now appears he simply doesn't care about the opinions of other users on this matter. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Wasn't this exactly, what you have done, Gatoclass? Only it was worse in your case because you removed the hook for the topic you were involved over with your head.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Please keep discussion focused: if you have concerns about another user, feel free to discuss with them at their user talk page, or at WT:DYK. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC) No it wasn't Mbz, it was a very different situation, but per Cirt this is neither the time and place for that debate. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support. I personally found it shocking that such a long-established admin acts this way. His way of using admin tools (as far as DYK is concerned) is simply incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support. Though I understand that DS is against fictional hooks without real-world context, removing them unilaterally from hooks or the main page is wholly inappropriate. I encourage him to bring up any problems he has with hooks at WT:DYK in the future, and I'm sad that it's come to this. Nomader (Talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose on both procedural and practical grounds. At 00:25 (UTC) today, the first complaint was raised on WT:DYK about Dragonfly's actions; exactly fourteen hours later, the topic ban proposal appears on this noticeboard (not on WP:AN/I, which would seem the forum for a demand that is so <irony>obviously important</irony> request). This is an obviously an insufficient period for any Wikipedia editor to be expected to reply to a discussion, given that we are a global project and operate in pretty much every time zone on the planet. As there was no reasonable time for a reply, there has been no attempt at WP:DR worthy of the name, and so a topic ban for DS would be completely inappropriate at this stage. My views about DYK are well known, but I think it speaks volumes that the matter has been handled in such an obviously inappropriate way, and the number of pile on supports that are above my !vote. The best long term solution would be a topic ban for all editors on DYK, by its simple abolition; every time it shows itself both incapable to apply the basic principles of WP editing, while being notorious for the miniscule numbers of readers who access the encyclopedia from the articles it features, it is adding another log on the fire that's cooking it. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Actually this seems to be a perennial issue with DS, I believe there are several other threads in the archives about similar removals (will try to dig them up later). As for the time that elapsed, you can see there was ample time for DS to reply, given that he did reply many times at the WT:DYK section linked above, and it was only after the discussion with him got nowhere that this proposal started. As for the appropriateness of having the discussion here rather than at the DYK talk page, I agree, and I too had suggested that consensus be reached there before bringing anything here, but that is not what happened. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I haven't found all of them yet, but other than the real-world issue that I believe is already linked, here is something from this September: WT:Did you know/Archive 58#Hook deleted from main page. I vaguely recall there being more like this (and note cmadler's comment "I'm really getting tired of reading about DS deleting hooks from queues"), I just haven't found them all yet. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I also don't see what about the above comments you think constitutes a pile-on (click through the link). They all have rationales with them (they're not JUSTAVOTEs), and they all came after extended discussion at WT:DYK (although you don't see that discussion here because Cirt rolled it up and somewhat hastily moved the proposal over here before the discussion at WT:DYK ended); they're not just showing up out of nowhere and dropping votes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose per Psychim62.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) To reiterate: after a series of warnings regarding hooks-pertaining-to-fiction and the best way to deal with removing an inappropriate hook from the queues, I removed a hook from the queues for a wholly different reason: although I felt it was a perfectly valid and appropriate hook, I had concerns about its factual accuracy. Those concerns have been dealt with and the hook has been returned to its rightful place the queue, and I find it ridiculous to have this lumped in with the other behaviors for which I was criticized and for which I have already conceded the point. For that matter, I have continued making several small changes to sentence structure and punctuation, in the intervening time. We have all wasted too much time on this; I will not remove hooks from the template, queues, or preparation areas unless there are serious concerns regarding factual accuracy or BLP issues; but in all cases I will make certain to restore [any hooks which I consider problematic] to the discussion areas to ensure that they are not lost. Now can we all get back to work? DS (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the problem is, you removed that hook right after you'd been advised by multiple users not to unilaterally remove hooks anymore, but to discuss on the talk page first. What you've managed to do over the course of several weeks is leave a strong impression that you simply don't listen to concerns that are being raised over your hook removals. This is a collaborative project and you cannot just ignore the concerns of other users and go on doing your own thing as if other opinions didn't matter. Indeed, you are doing the same with this very post, which amounts to "I've done nothing wrong, now let's all get back to work". Multiple users have informed you that your hook removals are problematic, but here you are asserting your right to continue removing hooks if you and you alone see a problem with them. That is just inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Wait, wait, hold on. Too much going too fast; I may have missed a statement. Where was that statement made, please? This would have been much easier if it was all in one place, but I've been hopping back and forth and it's difficult to keep track. Diffs, please.DS (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support, I was hoping to avoid this but DS repeatedly fails to get the concerns and to address them. @Physichim, this is not the first time. See the link in the WT:DYK thread to a thread only 7 weeks old where this same issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) {EDITCONFLICT} (EDITCONFLICT)Important question: why has no one addressed the issue of whether my edits to sentence structure, word choice, and punctuation are permissible or problematic? This is a question which must be dealt with, and I find it most disappointing that this debate does not yet include a section precisely defining which behaviors are or are not to be considered acceptable. Is this diff acceptable? Why or why not? What about this one? Or this one? Why is no one else taking the time to address these points? DS (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I personally don't have much of a problem with such edits of yours, what I've seen of them. The issue is the way you remove hooks without discussion, when it's clear that you don't understand DYK procedures related to hook removal or when it is and is not appropriate to do hook removals. And until you demonstrate that you do "get it" in that regard, I see no reason why you shouldn't be banned from doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Note: So far, it appears (at least), prior discussion threads involving this issue at DYK have included: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_57#Clarification_for_.22real-world_context.22_in_DYK_rules, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_58#Hook_deleted_from_main_page, and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#.22Real-world_context.22. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding the Taylor Vixen hook: "Yeah, I noticed that one hook was removed. The hook was for Taylor Vixen. I must say that agree with DragonflySixtyseven on that one. The hook text was rather in bad taste and very tabloidy, IMO. I don't think hooks like that should be promoted." Regarding the 'real-world context' - those were objections that I made on the suggestions page. Under what circumstances do you have grounds to complain about my objecting on the suggestions page? DS (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) @DS: I don't know about others, but I have already addressed this question of yours repeatedly and at length here, and clearly you still don't get it. The issue is that some of the editors there, myself included, do not feel you are capable of deciding what edits you make to the template and queues are appropriate and what edits aren't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (e.c.) Another thread in which it is made clear that DS's views on fiction in hooks is not shared by other editors: Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Clarification for .22real-world context.22 in DYK rules EdChem (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) At least 2 other editors explicitly support DS there, and the thread peters out without obvious conclusion. I gather DS's judgement in removing problematic hooks is in question, but given that we're talking about Main Page exposure, it seems quite appropriate to be conservative. This isn't a licence to ignore clear consensus, but it is a consideration. Overall this discussion seems quite extraordinarily premature - where are the prior steps of dispute resolution? Rd232 talk 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And for what I believe may be the fifth time, let me repeat that I HAVE CONCEDED THE POINT. Objections are to be raised on the suggestions page. Can we all get on with our lives now? DS (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC I strongly concur with your view that we should "err on the safe side" in regard to DYK problems. The problem is that DS has on multiple occasions removed hooks that others don't see a problem with. He does it without discussion on the DYK talk page first, and he does it incorrectly, just deleting them altogether instead of restoring them to T:TDYK for further discussion and without restoring the previous debate or leaving a message about why he removed them. DS is basically acting like judge, jury and executioner, and it has proven very difficult to get through to him what is wrong with his behaviour. I personally wasn't keen on this ban proposal, but I think at least until he demonstrates that he understands the concerns and will act accordingly, a ban would be not inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Ah, you're quite correct in that I hadn't been restoring problematic hooks to T:TDYK for further work; mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. My actions have been done in ignorance of the methodology which evolved for this situation. If I ever notice anything problematic (regarding BLP or factual accuracy; regarding the question of 'appropriateness' in fiction, - and let me say this for possibly the SIXTH time - I HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THE POINT) which I feel must be removed, I will immediately replace it on T:TDYK. The reason that I have acted so precipitously in making removals [edit: in OTHER matters such as porn stars talking about their breasts, or politicians who are in the middle of running for president, or forensic pathologists who are in mid-lawsuit over claims of criminal negligence which may have led to innocent men being executed, ALL OF WHICH ARE THINGS THAT I REMOVED FROM DYK) is that the front page gets hundreds of hits per second and that anything inappropriate draws dozens of complaints. DS (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And I'll say mine for the sixth time too. The proposal is not asking that you please make sure to replace hooks on T:TDYK after you remove them. It's asking you not to remove them at all. Not because you forgot to replace them, but because some editors do not trust your judgment in what should and should not be removed in the first place. You have not <big>CONCEDED</big> that point, no matter how big you say so; you don't even appear to understand it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Thankyou for conceding that your actions have been done "in ignorance of the methodology" - an ignorance that has persisted for many, many months as you have been contributing to DYK over a long period. I don't know of any other admin active at DYK who has remained ignorant of our procedures for such a long period, and perhaps you could ask yourself why that might be. But this confession is at least a step in the right direction. But while you have "already conceded the point" as you put it, I am obliged to point out to you that even after this concession, you still blew it in your very next hook removal by failing to restore the previous discussion as you had been reminded to do. You also removed the hook over a very minor issue that could easily have been resolved at DYK talk without any of the drama. The bottom line is that you are still not getting it right, and you are not getting it right because you don't listen to what others are trying to tell you. And until you do show some evidence that you are capable of paying attention, I see no reason why you should be allowed to continue disrupting DYK with your self-confessedly "ignorant" editing. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding recent behavior at this AN board by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) = The yelling and the bold and the all caps and the big font is not really helping matters. -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You're correct, but I hope you can understand that it's a little aggravating (in particular, the edit conflicts when I'm trying and trying to make my points). This is a ridiculous mess, and aside from the disputes over the appropriateness of fiction (where I have already conceded the point, I stand by each one of my decisions and -- since your premise is that I have a record of poor judgment in this respect -- I am more than willing to argue each one with you, right here. DS (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) There is no valid rationale for this level of text markup by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs). It just appears to the reader as screaming at other users, which is not polite. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Clearly DS is aggravated and tempers running high. Frankly I'm not all that surprised, in the circumstances. Jumping to such a ban proposal when there seems to have been insufficient communication/discussion (dispute resolution) is just all round bad. It doesn't help matters that the proposal has no clearly argued rationale. What are the actual, current, outstanding, still-disputed issues? Rd232 talk 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict) Whose fault is it that there has been "insufficient communication/discussion"? DS is pulling more hooks at the very same time he is blowing off the concerns of other admins or not responding at all. If we can get DS to acknowledge his mistakes and actually start paying attention to the concerns of others, I'm happy to suspend the ban proposal. But he hasn't done that yet. Gatoclass (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Important question: what's a prep area for if not for pointing out last-minute problems with hooks? This is not a rhetorical question; I may have misunderstood the purpose of the prep areas. DS (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Sorry, I've seen DS' constructive contributions at DYK in the past. This seems hardly necessary. He's conceded error; I'm sure he'll be more careful in future. By the way, Cirt, DS is reading the thread; you don't need to address him like he isn't here. Your comments are only serving to aggravate the situation further, I think. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I was attempting to avoid further escalation by avoiding back-and-forth and back-and-forth. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support - this has been a long time coming; DS has a fairly long history of unilateral actions and ignoring DYK consensus and conventions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Very Weak Oppose Seems like there's been insufficient discussion on the matter, but his actions both at DYK and here (All-caps shouting and the like) worry me almost to the point of supporting in spite of my first point. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose as whole however I would support an Interim ban until RFC/U fully examines the matter. RFC/U is to me what is needed right now. after such we Should come back and consider any other actions necessary The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, agreeing with PeterSymonds. Speaking as someone whose DYK hook has been removed by DragonflySixtyseven in the past, I know what it feels like to suddenly have an article you spent time on removed from the main page. But had we stopped to wait for discussion, what I would now consider a violation of our BLP policies would have stayed on our main page for several hours, allowing it to be read by up to hundreds of thousands of users. Questionable hooks should always be removed from the main page, ASAP. It is not like they cannot be readded if consensus deems otherwise. NW (Talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Again, I largely agree with this, but I must point out that not all concerns are equal. A BLP concern would obviously justify pulling a hook, as would, for example, serious POV concerns. When it's just a minor quibble over a possible inaccuracy, however, that can readily be dealt with by a discussion about it, pulling the hook in such circumstances is just needless disruption. Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed, the proposals for further discussion with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), and possibly Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, are indeed good ones. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Okay, I think it's clear this proposal is going nowhere, I had misgivings about it myself but in the circumstances thought it might be just as well to go along with it.

In place of the ban proposal, I would like to propose that discussion takes place with DS regarding the concerns that others have had with his edits, and that DS agrees not to pull any more hooks from the queue until those other users are satisfied that he fully understands our procedures and when it is and is not appropriate to pull hooks. If DS will agree to that, I think we can probably end this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed above proposal. More discussion by multiple users in attempts to resolve the dispute with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is a good thing, though if that does not resolve the matter, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct may be appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have some concerns that are unrelated to DYK, but would fit into a broader discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Can we get back to work now? DS (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update posted to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Update_regarding_User:DragonflySixtyseven. -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Robinson (Rock Star)

Resolved

 – HJ Mitchell wanted to kill it — Gavia immer (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

7 days and 3 hours on the prod for Jessica Robinson (Rock Star). Anyone wanna kill it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a process note, if deletion is time sensitive, why PROD? Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:Iaaasi

At this time, I would like to propose the unblock of User:Iaaasi so that he may start editing here again. He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. That is, he was implicated as a possible sock puppet of banned user User:Bonaparte (see SPI cases), but it was not conclusive that he is. After communicating with him off-wiki, I feel that he has met the letter and spirit of WP:OFFER, sock or not, and that I have confidence that he can return to editing constructively here on en.wiki. –MuZemike 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• If not for his socking (and I'm referong to Conttest and Umumu, which he apparently has admitted), I wpuld be inclined to support it. However, once he created these socks, I oppose this for now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: This user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [42]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery. 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs)

• Support: We need more racists editing articles here to get their point across. Our standards are way too high. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• From what I can see of his participation on simple-wiki, he has only been doing minor gnomish stuff there. I don't see anything in his performance that would give me confidence he has changed his attitude towards editing his apparent ideological hot-button topics, related to Romania and Hungary. Has he demonstrated he is able and willing to edit politically sensitive content in a neutral way? If so, how? Or is the plan to keep him topic-banned from that area? Unless this is clarified, I'm opposed to a lifting of the ban. WP:OFFER means not just that they have refrained from socking; if it has any meaning at all, it means he must provide a full, credible demonstration that all problematic behaviour patterns are thoroughly understood and under control. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I too have interacted a fair amount with Iaaasi. In my interactions with him, I have found him to be reasonably rational and generally accepting that what he did was wrong and is willing to learn from his mistakes. Regarding the accused racism above, I agree that does raise some concerns. As such, I have asked Iaaasi to email me a statement and I will cross-post it here for him. Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was involved at the time of the block and things seem to have calmed down from where they were in the weeks following the block. If this can keep up I see no reason not to let him back. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I too am interested in reading the user's statement before coming to any view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for unblock conditional on the following being imposed in lieu of the block: (1) an appropriate Romanian/Hungarian topic ban, and, (2) an account restriction (restricted to editing with a single account). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support pursuant to the Wikipedia:Standard offer being applied. Basket of Puppies 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock with a Topic ban on Romania and Hungary Ethnic relations broadly defined I am willing to trust this user as the worst case scenerio is we block him again. If he can create and write on articles in that region (Towns, Local landmarks, Foods Etc). If he can manage to edit under that restriction, in six months we can review the need for the topic ban The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist, if this editor is sincere, then give him a chance to prove it. It should be clear that violation of the conditions will lead to the block being reinstated. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Let's give him a chance to show that he can be trusted. Netalarm^talk 02:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Let's give him another chance. If he misbehaves again, then I think the punishment should be harsher. Bejinhan talks 06:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have already proposed his unblock as my personal opinion was that the unfortunate edit on his user page mentioned by Toddst1 and which was the cause of his block had not been intended by him to be what it actually looks like. Although acting on impulse on some occasions, as a Hungarian, I felt that Iaaassi never intended to offend Hungarians, he simply wanted to chivy certain Hungarian editors who had a permanent edit conflict with him about a certain article. I frequently edit articles about Transylania having a conflict potential between Hungarian and Romanian (or vice versa) points of view. My impression was that Iaassi has made a significant progress in seeking mutual understanding and respecting reached consensus. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist and Mjroots -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist and Rokarudi, plus, the editor is now aware of the consequences of being caught up in inappropriate nationalistic behaviours, and that any further incidences will result in possibly indefinite bans. Let's give them the chance to prove they have moved on and up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unfortunately, I can't believe in Iaaasi's troth. But if the community should be propitious to him, it will be in order with a concomitant of indefinite topic ban on Hungarian-Romanian related articles--Nmate (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Without any restrictions so we can see if he can respect Wikipedia. The worst possible scenario is that he will be blocked again. Adrian (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I just spoke with the user on IRC, I support giving Iaaasi another chance. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that this request is seriously misrepresented, as it takes no account of the numerous confirmed socks [43] that this user operated and the degree of disruption over a period of almost a year now. In fact we see no confirmation that there is not currently multiple active socks running by this user. If we look at the user history we do know that that some of the socks made several hundred edits. user:Umumu Total edits (including deleted):1,354 . user:DerGelbeMann Total edits (including deleted):564. Just two examples as we see during the socks made several thousand edits in total. If the past is any indication these several thousand edits on just the confirmed socks in a period of several months meaning hundreds of edits each month on just the confirmed socks. If the past is any indication we can be sure that there are currently active socks right now. The focus should be on finding and blocking those socks. Also it is false that Iaaasi edited to "show he is constructive" he edited with the socks to 1. Attack fellow editors 2. Parttake in administration procedures admin noticeboards [44] 3. handed out "warnings" with his socks [45] 4. The last confirmed sock is as recent as August [46] 5. Many times he edit warred using IP socks as well not a tenth of which are logged into the suspected and other categories. In conclusion I can see no benefit from "restoring editing privileges" when in fact the user edited with several thousand edits as it is. Also in full disclosure I have reason to believe that this user edited using a sock as recently as within a week of today so this might make me more prone to oppose. Also there is the issue of his open displays of ethnic hatred as discussed above which make me uneasy. However there may be a possibilty that the issues can be lessened by a full disclosure of all present and past socks by this user and a complete removal from the problematic area meaning anything to do with any Eastern OR Central European topic history geography biographies etc. This would still leave almost all of wikipedia to edit. Hobartimus (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have just checked the standard offer referenced by someone above and it says as it's first point. "Wait six months without sockpuppeting." As it is pointed out above the last confirmed socking [47] is in 2010 August 9th. Mind you this is only the last CheckUser confirmed socking by this user so there could be much more of it just not yet confirmed by CheckUser. Hobartimus (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - In the light of Hobartimus' comment about recent sockpuppetry (less than 2 months ago) I agree that the conditions of WP:OFFER are not met, so I oppose an unblock at this time. I have some ideas about a suitable unblock condition regarding articles subject to WP:DIGWUREN, but I think that discussion can wait until a full six months have passed since Iaaasi's last usage of socks. I support Jpgordon's request (below) for Iaaasi's complete disclosure of all past accounts he has used. I encourage him to be frank, since Jpgordon is a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose a nationalist editor who was socking as recently as August to return to his arena of conflict and generally engaging the old battlefield. Seriously misguided proposal.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Isn`t the purpose of the block to correct the behavior of one user, not to punish him? If this user is ready to change I think the opportunity should be presented so we can really see if this user is a nationalist or a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. This user has shown a great deal of understanding over various issues where I would`t call him a nationalist or something similar. For example on this consensus, [48]. Also User:Hobartimus recognized the valuable contributions of this user. Adrian (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Since I saw my name above I examined the link posted by Adrian. It is true that the user in question YellowFF0 seemed like a constructive user to me, in other words I was 100% fooled by the first edits of that account. Now this [49] later behavior, a brand new account reporting someone at ANI would have raised a bit more of a red flag. What's more important, the YellowFF0 account was active in late august and posting at ANI as late as August 25th, reporting User:Romaniantruths [50] to administrators. But the August 25th date, about a month before this unblocking suggestion was proposed shows, he not only socked in a Checkuser Confirmed fashion, he also actively used administrator noticeboards to report others to get them blocked. By this relevation found by user:Iadrian_yu it can be demonstrated that the words of the original proposal "he has met the letter and spirit of WP:OFFER" no longer apply. WP:OFFER states it needs to be more than six months for it to apply, now we found, it was actually one month. WP:OFFER does not apply to this case that is certain now. Hobartimus (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support as he was corrected and let's give him another chance--Yopie (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Socking as recent as August? No. And I dislike the IRC canvassing. T. Canens (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, concerns about the recent violations of site policy with socks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Iaaasi

I think the block of an user should be firstly a measure to protect Wikipedia against people who try to sabot it by destructive edits, not a punishment for someone who did something wrong without a clear intent, so I hope I can find understanding...

The fact that I was involved in conflicts in the past was against my will and was partly a consequence of my lack of experience from that moment and perhaps a result of the fact that I was too less calm.

The famous xenophobic profile page was a kind of childish revenge after an user tried (in the end unsuccesfully) to remove the Romanian name of a historical personality, not an expression of my feelings. My aim was in no case to offend all the users of Hungarian nationality, but my action was focused only against a single user. That is not an excuse, it was a terrible mistake and I regret it

On the other hand, I know that it is blamable that I evaded my block, but the only reason was to show that I want to be a good contributor and my goal is to improve articles, not to disturb others.

If I will be unblocked, I am ready to be kept under a strict observation and at the first mistake to be irevocably re-blocked. (Posted on behalf of Iaaasi by Tiptoety ^talk at 06:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC))).

The famous xenophobic profile page was a kind of childish revenge after an user tried (in the end unsuccesfully) to remove the Romanian name of a historical personality, not an expression of my feelings. My aim was in no case to offend all the users of Hungarian nationality, but my action was focused only against a single user. That is not an excuse, it was a terrible mistake and I regret it -- "Mistake"? No. Writing the number 1 when the right answer is 2 is a mistake. Putting your left shoe on your right foot is a mistake. Swallowing with your trachea instead of your esophagus is a mistake. The expression of gross bigotry is not a mistake, unless, perhaps, you'd intended to put "not" in every quote there and forgot to. "Not an expression of my feelings"? Whose feelings, then? Whether the hateful sentiments you expressed are your own or someone else's, you, the person who posted it, are responsible for your own actions and your own words. I'd want a heck of a lot more than this poor excuse for an apology. Oh, it's not even an apology -- it's an expression of "regret". And of course you'd be under strict observation if unblocked; we do that routinely to serial sockpuppeteers. Just how many accounts have you created? Please provide us a list, including those that we have not yet blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to post the following message from Iaaasi upon his request:

I don't want to accuse others for my actions, but I think the users Nmate and Hobartimus are not the most entitled persons to talk about correctness:

• User Nmate is a constant edit warrior and has a very colorful block log, including sanctions for this kind of things: "Ethnic slurs and incivility"
• Hobartimus showed hostility to me since the beginnings, one example being here, where he reverted my edit with no clear reason

I know there are serious reasons to believe that I am not trustable, but please give me a second and last chance.

–MuZemike 05:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning for participants!

Not accurate, off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must inform all participants in Iaasi cause, especially all with "Support" vote, that you can be reported by Nmate for really everything. I was blocked in "rolback" by his request for my vote here and he explicitly says here, that "when I was logged in to the Wikipedia yesterday, I recognized the situation and it induced my dudgeon and that proded me to fill that report at WP ANI".--Yopie (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

Unresolved

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the RFC at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it please? Thanks, nableezy - 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While We are on the topic of RFC if some one could close and summarize Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts it would be much appreciated as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the Ahmed Yassin one, but that looks to be much too complicated for this late in the evening... After a brief read-through I couldn't see an obvious consensus for any particular outcome, in case that's any help to whoever wants to close it.  Sandstein  22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

Unresolved

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the RFC at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it please? Thanks, nableezy - 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While We are on the topic of RFC if some one could close and summarize Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts it would be much appreciated as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the Ahmed Yassin one, but that looks to be much too complicated for this late in the evening... After a brief read-through I couldn't see an obvious consensus for any particular outcome, in case that's any help to whoever wants to close it.  Sandstein  22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD

Could someone uninvolved - if there actually is anyone left - please put Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination) out of its misery? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never closed one ... but crikey. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done subject to DRV, drama, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What kind of community actions can AN/I enforce?

Moved to WT:AN#What_kind_of_community_actions_can_AN.2FI_enforce.3F

(discussion has stopped for a week now, so timestamping for archiving reasons here. Fram (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

 – Now all cleared ~ mazca ^talk 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! There are some reports at WP:AIV that date back over an hour. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple move

Can someone please G6 All the Women I Am so I can move All the Women I Am (album) to it? The qualifier isn't needed; the author doesn't know how to overwrite redirects. If I didn't ask here, it'd probably take about a month before someone got around to doing the G6 deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha. I just went to move it (which effects the G6 automatically) but it seems HJ Mitchell had already G6'd it. Either way, consider it done. I've fixed one double redirect.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that we have a wonderful separate noticeboard for this kind of requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Whenever you're in need of page-moving fun, it's better to place a request there than on this general noticeboard. Jafeluv (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of topic ban

Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to disruptive and tendentious editing, wall-of-text commentary and proxying for banned users. As soon as the topic ban expired he returned to all three, notably going to the Meta blacklist to request (again, after previous refusals) removal of banned user Jed Rothwell's site lenr-canr.org, which Abd misrepresents in the request as a "by-permission archive" despite it being pointed out in the past that some of the content is copyright Springer Verlag and they absolutely do not give permission for full text copies in third-party websites. The only evidence for the by-permission claim is the site owner, who has, to put it charitably, a vested interest in interpreting this elastically. It's his funeral if he gets a takedown, after all.

Cold fusion is a former FA which was demoted and subject to extended edit-warring by advocates of what is unquestionably regarded by the mainstream as an extreme fringe field. Abd paints himself now as an "expert" but this expertise is courtesy of the now-banned CF advocates Jed Rothwell and Pcarbonn, whose mission is to recast Wikipedia to reflect the field as they wish it to be rather than as it is. There is ongoing trivial research by minor parties but the supermajority view in the scientific community is that this is not just fringe but a pariah field due to the very highly publicised issues with the original paper in Nature and subsequent failure to reproduce results.

Having looked at Abd's involvement in this article it is crystal clear to me that the problems which led to his original topic ban have not been resolved, or even acknowledged, It's a question of wait until the timeout finishes and carry on as before. Nobody in the world has enough time to resist this insistent POV-pushing, so I propose that the topic ban be reinstated.

Abd's mission seems to be evangelistic rather than encyclopaedic. He's writing an article putting the pro-CF case at Wikiversity, that's where it should stay. His talk-page commentaries have always argued the primary case rather than the proper Wikipedia case per NPOV and UNDUE, and this is only partly IMO because NPOV mitigates against the relentless attempts of the CF lobby to swing the article to their POV; mainly he is a self-declared obsessive personality and has a bee in his bonnet about something he ahs come to believe is an unjustly vilified field. It does not seem to be posisble to get home the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to fix that and using it to do so violates policy.

The debate goes on an on in the same form:

World Dog: Abd, your endless commentary is impenetrable, takes too much time for anybody to read, and argues the primary case.

Abd: Yes, you're right, thanks, I will do somehting about that

Time passes during which Abd carries on exactly as before

Repeat ad nauseam.

The comments from NawlinWikiNuclearWarfare [edited by NW (Talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)] on Abd's talk page echo almost word for word the findings of the arbitration case. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Abd fundamentally does not believe he's doing anything wrong, and never has, despite topic and site bans. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Completed after edit conflict and login

Thanks for signing this, JzG, I was thinking of filing an SSP report.... --Abd (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I urge that this report from an anonymous editor [JzG] be ignored. The above is radically distorted. The charges are familiar, but I'm not going to accuse anyone of socking yet, but to respond to this would take a lot of words. Someone let me know if any [other] registered editor signs up to support this, confirming and taking responsibility for charges, and I'll respond. Thanks. Briefly, however, all the above has been considered in depth and there has already been consensus formed, which I'm acting on. The pages that I linked were all whitelisted, I could not have added those links without it; that took an admin, who considered the arguments. This is beating a dead horse. --Abd (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)struck now-irrelevant text, added relevant text in brackets. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Having perused the talk page at Cold Fusion, I see impenetrable walls of text posted by Abd. That, certainly, has not changed. → ROUX ₪ 22:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To someone not interested in working on the topic, what I wrote, which was very much on point, and about improving the article, is going to seem like walls of text. However, I stopped that. Entirely. Roux, you were seeing what was there before certain users complained. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Abd, may I try to mediate this between you and Guy? I see that your involvement on Cold fusion is probably going to upset other editors. It would be a wise idea to go take up other interests. We have millions of articles. Why return to the scene of a very unpleasant dispute that went all the way to arbitration. Guy, could you supply diffs for the case you are making? Additionally, why is this here, rather than at requests for arbitration amendments? Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No mediation will help. This is not between me and Abd, it is between Abd and absolutely everybody who supports WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and in doing so, necessarily, opposes his attempts to recast the article in a light more favourable to his banned friends' mission. Proxying for banned editors, returning to the behaviour that led to sanctions as soon as they expire, and dismissing criticism out of hand, are all hallmarks of Abd's long-term behaviour. This is not because Abd is a bad person, albeit that he is an incredibly vexing person to deal with, it's about long term civil POV-pushing, proxying for banned editors and constantly restating the same position regardless of how many times it's rebutted, as with the request for removal of the copyright-violating lenr-canr site at the Blacklist. The request is substantially identical to the previous rejected request and does not address in any way at all the criticism of the previous request, nor does it even acknowledge such criticisms as valid. It's like talking to a deaf person with their fingers in their ears changing "laa laa laa I can't hear you". I am ot active on these articles. There is nothing to mediate between us. Check NawlinWikiNuclearWarfare's [edited by NW (Talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)] comments on Abd's talk page, check previous AN and ANI debates. This is an editor whose problems are only resolved by excluding him from his hot-button topics, or fomr the project altogether. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you appear to be upset. Is it the case that you feel very frustrated that all the time and effort that went into arbitrating the matter has resulted in a return to exactly the same situation that existed before with this article? Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of information - it appears that the User talk:Abd comment Guy states was NawlinWiki was in fact NuclearWarfare... Is that correct? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Guy meant NuclearWarfare's recent request that Abd makes posts of 200 words at most. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing - Abd, it appears that (recent contribs) your contributions since the prior Arbcom topic ban expired on Sept 13 2010 have been either entirely or nearly entirely focused on Cold Fusion. All the other articles and editors talk pages related to this appear connected to the Cold Fusion topic. Do you generally agree with that statement? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm COI on the topic, am highly involved with it as a researcher and editor, and am following COI guidelines carefully. I'm disgusted with Wikipedia, in general, and so I'm not putting in much work, beyond a brief period, ending several days ago, where I did write a lot about problems with Cold fusion text. I do not edit the article anticipating controversy, unless I do so as a suggested edit, in which case I self-revert and discuss in Talk. I see that the links I added today were reverted by another editor who was previously sanctioned and banned from Cold fusion as well, for a time. I certainly won't revert him, but the issues he raised in removing them have been addressed before and I was following what I thought was established WP consensus; removals of these links survived only when not noticed. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG addressed JzG's POV involvement at Cold fusion and the spam blacklist and his abuse of admin tools; some of the damage has not yet been cleaned up. I was doing that today, because I'm aware of the history and the issues and the sources. I might be wasting my time, but I thought I could be helpful. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy hasn't done anything there directly, nor abused admin capabilities in this go-around. He just reported here.

Abd, can you characterize what your recent (last 3 weeks-ish) edits have done, in terms of sources, approach to editing, and content you attempted to add, compared to the editing you were doing last year before the topic ban? Do you believe you are editing in a significantly different or more collaborative manner than you were previously? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I now depend entirely on collaboration for anything that might be controversial, and I could point to examples. I also, by the way, know perhaps ten times as much about the topic as I did then, I understand the significance of sources (positive and negative) much better. I've pointed to reliable sources, as I'm supposed to do, as a COI editor. Arbitrators are aware of my activity. JzG did intervene, four times now, in this period, but this isn't about him, so I won't provide links. What occasioned today's report was an action remedying JzG's prior abuse, and he's continued it, only without using admin tools, just pushing the POV, including his POV about lenr-canr.org links, which has been rejected by the community when it's been considered. Jehochman knows some of the history, consider his remarks.... he filed RfAr/Abd and JzG, after it was clear that JzG wasn't going to back down after RfC/JzG 3.

By the way, what is this report doing on AN? If immediate admin action is needed, the boilerplate for this page suggests AN/I, but there is no emergency here, no revert warring, no major activity. I've seen JzG use AN like this before, to get a user banned for his POV -- it was that explicit, and it worked --, when there was no emergency at all. To my mind, this is a violation of ban policy, but, I do know, that's been ignored. The "community" is not "the community of administrators," even though some admins think of themselves as the community. --Abd (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding only to the venue question - Discretionary sanctions were enabled by Abd-WmC arbcom case and no timeout was set on those; also, AN is the preferred (though slightly less common than ANI) venue for community sanctions discussions. In this case, either an uninvolved administrator under discretionary sanctions could act, or the community could here. Whether it's warranted is up to the discussion etc. I respect JzG but we certainly won't to anything just on his say-so while he's self-admittedly emotionally responding to something. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GWH, I hadn't thought of it that way. This is a problem: there has been misbehavior by a number of editors at Cold fusion, and it got very much worse just a few days ago, when some former editors with problematic histories returned. Those editors are not COI, AFAIK, but they are quite unrestrained and are clearly pushing a POV, and strongly. Ideally, what I'd like to see is some neutral admins who will watch Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion with an eye to arbitration enforcement, and I'd be happy to discuss that, but this isn't a good place for it. Let this be a request for such administrative oversight, it could do a great deal of good. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb here. I think it would be less stressful for all concerned if Abd avoided the cold fusion area as long as he's engaged in primary research on the topic. It is challenging to be so involved, and yet maintain the necessary detachment and objectivity required for Wikipedia editing. Some editors can do it, but because of the history here, I think it wiser for Abd to avoid the entire area. Would you agree to that, Abd? We have millions of other editing opportunities. I'd really like to see an outcome where all sides agree and part ways, rather than having this matter return to arbitration where I feel the result will be a lot less friendly. Jehochman ^Talk 00:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jehochman, that would be fine for me, but lousy for the project. No, I'm far more interested in cold fusion than I am in Wikipedia. It's really up to the community whether it wants experts editing, and COI editors are generally expert or at least more expert than the large majority of users. WP:COI appears to encourage COI editors to participate in Talk. This is a widespread problem, it is by no means confined to me and Cold fusion. Experts tend to get banned even when they follow COI guidelines, because Randy in Boise doesn't like to be corrected.

Suit yourself, folks. I'm just an advisor now, and you are free to ignore my advice. At your own risk of loss. You have an article which is massively deficient in many respects, compared to what is available (on all sides!) in reliable sources. You have many other problems, with many other articles, but I'm not necessarily expert in them, and it's way too much work. Try to figure out how to get experts involved, and protect them, if you want better content in such areas.

From what I've seen of JzG recently, though, the project might be better off if this does, indeed, go back to ArbComm. I didn't provoke him, I just did what I knew to do, and none of it will I repeat. What he's done with me, he's done with others (and that, in fact, is how I became aware of the problem with his work). Someone, please, give him some good advice. I see you trying, Jehochman. You are also trying to give me good advice, but you don't understand my motives (just as you might not understand his, I suspect. Or maybe you do.) --Abd (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Abd reports here a clear conflict of interest. Abd is motivated to encourage interest and activity in the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Actually, Wikipedia is a distraction from what I need to do. Could be a mistake on my part. I gain nothing by advising the editors here. I have a business, indeed, but that business could actually be hurt by a better Wikipedia article. Long story, I won't explain here, but someone can ask me on my Talk if this seems mysterious. In any case, we expect COI editors to "push" a POV, that's why they are restricted, but supposedly we also encourage them to advise in Talk, providing sources, and reviewing content (if you imagine that it's possible to write good encyclopedia science content without understanding the subject, you've been dreaming and it might be time to wake up.) --Abd (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We do need to be clear with you about something:

It's not "all COI editors" or "all expert editors" - Most editors are experts in things we have Wikipedia articles on, and conflicts of interest with some topic or topics. Some are particular experts, in the sense of technical or scientific or being a professor or industry recognized person or some sort, for example.

Very few of those people ever come up for ANI review, much less Arbcom review, much less multiple Arbcom cases or multiple Arbcom sanctions. You are in very rare company to have been so focused on in your career here. This is not a good thing.

I don't prejudge whether you are in the right or not on the particulars this time around. However - you should not and can not hide behind the shield of being an expert. If you believe that you are entitled to do so or that you should be able to act in different ways on the article because you are, you are wrong, and acting in a manner to place your editing status in danger.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GWH, the fuss arises because there are certain editors who have aligned around certain topics, and some of them have consistently acted to harass and seek the ban of editors with whom they disagree. What have I done that is a violation of policy or guidelines? I'm not generally acting on the article, except tentatively, occasionally, without even 1RR of others. The bulk of my article edits have been accepted, I think. What I've said about "shield" should apply to all those who claim expertise and who follow COI guidelines, not just me. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I realized that GWH may have a misunderstanding. I had no connection with cold fusion at the beginning of 2009 when I became aware of certain abusive blacklistings, those later covered at RfAr. This was not my "career." However, I started to read the article and look at the sources, and, because I knew some of the history -- I believed Cold fusion had been conclusively rejected -- and I had the physics and chemistry background to understand the issues, I became interested, bought most of the major books on the topic (skeptical and otherwise), and started to work on the article. I came under attack for that, as others had before. Eventually, with about two dozen editors yelling at me, long story, I was topic banned for a year. As I saw this coming, I decided to pursue my interest in cold fusion. I was a Wikipedia editor first, and one of my special concerns had been administrative abuse, I took two cases to ArbComm; in one case the admin was "admonished" -- JzG -- and in the other the admin lost his bit. So while I'm currently, in effect, an SPA, I have not always been so. It was cultivated. --Abd (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• It makes no sense that Abd is allowed to continue in essentially the same behavior for which he has been sanctioned repeatedly, simply because the most recent sanction has expired. It should not take another ArbCom case to deal with this. It should be a simple, straightforward administrative action. Problematic behavior is identified repeatedly → sanctions are applied → sanctions expire → problem recurs → ? Of course, Abd also continues to view his ArbCom cases as vindications, so this outcome should surprise no one. We need to make a clean break here - Abd can go off to promote cold fusion through the proper channels, and we can have a break from this constant misuse of Wikipedia to promote cold fusion. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't been "promoting cold fusion." Period. I've been describing on Talk, the state of the field, as shown in what is supposedly our gold standard for sourcing, peer-reviewed secondary sources. There are sixteen reviews of the field, reliable secondary sources, all positive, over the last five years, in mainstream peer-reviewed publications, and there is no such review that confirms the original reasons for rejection, which have all been answered. You would not see this from our article, because every time such a review has appeared, it's been excluded on arguments of "fringe" and "undue weight." I've proposed changes consistent with COI policy.

• From the article, one would think that there is no evidence for cold fusion, it's all just "pathological science," pursued by "fanatics," no theories have been proposed that are anything more than "ad hoc," and what was clearly a blatant bureaucratic error, easy to verify as such, is what the article still gives as the critical heat/helium finding, not what is actually in peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources. (Cold fusion always produces helium, in the right amount, from measured excess heat, to be fusion. No heat, no helium.) The strongest source to date: Status of cold fusion (2010) published in Naturwissenschaften this month. I know what the pseudoskeptics here are saying about this: biology journal. It's not. It's Springer-Verlag's "flagship multidisciplinary journal," covering all the "natural sciences," including physics and chemistry, and cold fusion is cross-disciplinary. And there is reliable source on that, very explicit.[51].

• Yes, the ArbComm cases were vindications of certain things (what I filed them over!), and not of others. In particular, ArbComm tends to shoot the messenger, and generally to follow a community that does the same. Given what I've seen in the three weeks or so since my topic ban expired, it is useless for me to advise Wikipedia, which is what I, as a declared COI editor, was doing, in full respect of the COI policy, and with my knowledge of the WP guidelines and policies on content and sourcing. Those policies are routinely being violated, and admins like MastCell don't care, they allow blatant NPOV violations -- such as the statement filed here by JzG, following his long-term push on cold fusion -- and they don't protect those who point it out. Hence it is useless for me to work here, the help is not wanted, there is no protection for expert advice.

• Because of the damage long done by abusive bans, if I'm banned or blocked, based on what's come down here -- where no violations of policy were alleged, nothing blockworthy or properly bannable -- I will appeal, but it's not a task I look forward to, nor do I have any attachment to outcome.

• MastCell has long been part of the problem, though certainly not the worst. I'm glad I won't have to deal with him any more. I wasn't sanctioned for what JzG accused me of. Nor was Pcarbonn, whose editing on Talk:Cold fusion was also brought here to AN, for ban, by JzG with no disclosure of his own history. JzG, in effect, if not in intention, lied, in both cases, presenting "evidence" that with any caution he'd know was deceptive,. But he knows people will often buy it, and the most he's gotten of sanction is a slap on the wrist, so he's continued. This is what Wikipedia built. I want no more part of it. --Abd (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any significant change in behaviour and just a repeat of previous problems. Moreover, while Abd is a COI editor, I don't think we should warp the debate by referring to him as a expert, he's a hobbyist who's read some books (as far as I can determine, someone correct me if I'm wrong) and swops emails with other fringe figures. This is not a debate about expert editors because as far as I can tell he's not a expert - he's just some guy with some books and a lot of time on his hands. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know about my "expertise," and blatant POV bans. Otherwise, suit yourself. --Abd (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you asked for correction, and you made this be about me, personally, as well as my friends. Is an editor appointed to the editorial board of Naturwissenschaften a "fringe figure"? It's claimed, for sure. But Edward Storms is published, his own book, by World Scientific, not a fringe publisher, and Springer-Verlag, publisher of Naturwissenschaften, certainly is not "fringe." Have you looked at those articles to see when the journal and its publishing company were founded? I'm claiming relative expertise, that's all. I know enough to carry on productive conversations with the real experts. I cited this recent peer-reviewed secondary source review of the field. There is a convenience link, but I'm not going to bother linking it here, because, courtesy of JzG and what he did at meta, the site is blacklisted. Content censorship through blacklisting. Anyone care about that? You can find the host if you look at the Naturwissenschaften paper, linked as a recommended source for papers on the topic. It is shown in the display of the first page of the paper which is, by the way, the first page of that issue. They are featuring this. If you look at the convenience copy hosted at lenr-canr.org, just before the bibliography, you'll see that I am credited. Does that show expertise? Well, it doesn't show stupidity! I started a business in the field, and invested about $3000 of my own money, and was given a $1000 grant and a $2000 interest-free loan from ... a Wikipedia editor who prefers to remain anonymous and I don't wonder, given what I've seen. But this editor is a scientist. I'm not a "hobbyist." I'm technically an entrepreneur who is investing in science. If I were a hobbyist, I'd not be COI. My investment is at stake. When you've got an investment at stake, you start to become much more careful about what you believe! What do I believe? I believe that there is strong evidence that the kits I'm designing will demonstrate a nuclear effect, cheaply, if I do it right. That evidence has been published under peer review in more than one mainstream journal, it is very notable, but there is a shortage of replications (it's fairly recent). Whether the kits show this or not, they will investigate the technique and I will publish regardless of the results I get. I.e., positive or negative. I'm interested in the science, and so will my customers be. This whole field has been warped by hype about "free energy." I'm not looking for free energy, there is no particular reason to think I could be successful when hundreds of millions of dollars were poured into this by the Japanese with disappointing results. Those results don't mean the science is bogus, they mean that the engineering is very, very difficult, mostly because the theoretical basis is not known, though there are now some plausible theories, still unproven. Wikipedia has no process for verifying expertise. Jed Rothwell isn't a scientist, he's a writer. Nevertheless, because of what he's been doing for many years, he is probably the world's foremost expert on cold fusion sources. He edits papers on the topic for publication under peer review, or he has edited conference paper collections for university publication, it's part of what he does, and his bibliography is the best, regardless of your POB. Jed Rothwell has been banned. For? For giving advice on Talk:Cold fusion! Pcarbonn now works in the field of cold fusion. After his topic ban expired, he came back and started, also, advising on Talk. Banned. Why? Very simple, and it is clear from the community ban discussions here at AN. He was banned for his POV. The same reasons given in the request here, which seeks to ban me for my declared COI advice on Talk:Cold fusion. Please understand the significance of a "POV ban" to the supposedly fundamental NPOV policy. ArbComm is once again deciding a case based on alleged POV blocks and bans. They will say that this isn't allowed. But it's become routine, in certain fields. Cold fusion is an unusual case, though, where it happens that what is currently acceptable to peer reviewers at mainstream publications is different from what "most scientists" believe. So it's very easy for you to speculate about fringe and expertise, but you have no idea about my background and knowledge, in fact. Any true expert could tell immediately, in person, and with a little back and forth in writing. There is a teeny problem, though. Expert in what? Chemistry or Physics? Is Cold fusion a chemistry article or a physics article, and how would we tell? Naturwissenschaften is a "multidisciplinary journal," a leading one, the best place to publish this stuff. Sure, in the end, physics will be involved, in some aspects of the theory (and the two foremost theoreticians in the field, my opinion, are physicists: Hagelstein and Takahashi.) But the evidence comes from chemistry. I'll be running (and then presumably selling) a set of chemistry experiments. But I'll be tacking Solid State Nuclear Track Detectors on them. Those are used by physicists, not usually chemists, though, in fact, these things are used in many fields, including biology. I'm not sure why I bother responding. Habit, I guess. Probably a Bad Idea. --Abd (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

JzG is constantly flogging the horse (live or dead?) that the blacklisted site is allegedly engaging in copyright violations, where it's his word against the site operator who denies this. If the site is in fact a pirate site, why hasn't it received a takedown notice in the years since it began posting the papers in question? Is it Wikipedia's role to aggressively enforce against alleged copyright violations that the copyright owners themselves aren't pursuing? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Within the collapse above, there is a link to a review paper published by Springer-Verlag, a publisher of many of the papers hosted at lenr-canr.org. You can see in the first-page image they provide for free, a link to lenr-canr.org, very prominent, as a place to read conference papers on the topic of cold fusion. This is often the only place where they may be read, but they are cited in the review paper, which makes them notable, in fact. Does anyone here seriously imagine that Springer-Verlag is not aware of the many journal papers published by them which are hosted in some form on lenr-canr.org? Lenr-canr.org often comes up at the top for specific searches for these papers. If the publishers are not aware of copyvios, they would be extraordinarily inattentive! Here they are publishing a link to the site, prominent, the first article page in their "flagship multidisciplinary journal."

Rather, what's happened is that editors here have assumed copyvio, out of a simple assumption of bad faith, a libel against Jed Rothwell. I.e., a phony legal problem is asserted, creating a possibly real legal problem, if Jed were to be inclined to sue. (He's not.) Last time I noticed, Jed was living, and BLP policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia. But these people don't really care about Wikipedia, they just use whatever policy suits their purposes at the moment. Imagine this level of attention given to all links on Wikipedia! It's happening here only because of POV, and that is visible in who has removed the links when they were used. I'm finished with this. Way too much work, and too little support. But thanks, DTobias, it's appreciated.

The links which were just removed by ScienceApologist from Cold fusion were all approved by an admin as being acceptable. The copyright arguments had been raised and rejected, for these papers, the whitelisting that allowed me to add these papers makes that obvious. Foolish me, I thought that all the prior discussion meant that these would be okay even though I'm COI. But now that someone has objected, even if it is SA, I certainly won't do that again!

And I just noticed this where JzG is fat and happy that the three main advocates of this content, Abd, Jed Rothewell and Pcarbonn, are all indefinitely topic banned, and yet again raises the copyright issue. Jed Rothwell was never actually banned, he abandoned his account, and no community discussion ever banned him. Rather, JzG declared a ban, unilaterally, and blocked some IP. Two of the IPs blocked were definitely not Jed, but ... JzG sees any content that he thinks is pro-cold fusion POV as being Jed Rothwell or a meat puppet. Pcarbonn is under some kind of ban, never properly closed, length not stated, in the report based on an AN report filed by ... JzG. However, the closer, FuturePerfect, notified Pcarbonn of an indef ban. There had been no clear consensus at AN, and FuturePerfect had argued for the ban, so the close wasn't neutral. I was under a topic ban at the time,one year, not "indefinite." When Pcarbonn's topic ban had expired, something like December, and he returned to editing the Talk page, JzG acted to get him banned, and he knows how to stir up the pitchforks and tar and feathers. When I came off the topic ban, the same, and the same report here. It's blatant. Now, who will do something about this? I'm not holding my breath. Jehochman waved his hands a bit, he wants everyone to be nice, which I sympathize with and I was actually hoping for that, but ... it's not what happened! I was promptly attacked. By the same old same old. I'm starting to sense that I may need to do something about this. And, against that, my better judgment, that it's useless, Wikipedia has gone too far down the tubes. You know, reading that AN report, JzG lied again and again, and it would be easy to show.... When I preparing RfC/JzG 3, I found the source of his enmity for Pcarbonn, and it is echoed in the AN report. And, reviewing this and the long-term behavior, it is conclusive proof of serious POV-pushing through misrepresenting sources, the kind of stuff that can sometimes get ArbComm's attention.... --Abd (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If we knowlingly link to a website hosting copyright infrigements we are just as guilty as the site that hosts the material, and policy reflects this. It isn't acceptable to break the law just because you haven't been caught. Hut 8.5 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, Hut 8.5. But you've misunderstood the issue. It is not our job to enforce copyright compliance on other sites. Rather, the key word in what you wrote is "knowingly." Prosecution for such would be rare, but it is possible. All prosecution for this has, in fact, been for egregious violations. But we draw the line at positive evidence, if it's known.

What's missed is that we have no obligation at all to verify the copyright status of some other site, and if you think about it, this would place an impossible burden on Wikipedia. What would the proof consist of? What is clear about lenr-canr.org is that, if there are any copyvios there, they are relatively few. And the policy does cover this, it is quite clear. Perhaps people should read it! It has been attempted to add a verification of permission requirement to the policy, and it was shot down, for obvious reasons, I'm sure. But it lives on, with POV-pushers who wish to exclude sites that They Don't Like.

We don't have to check every site for copyright problems before we link there, no, but this doesn't mean that if we are aware of such problems we should ignore them. Even if a prosecution over something like this is unlikely or difficult that doesn't mean Wikipedia can take part in illegal or immoral behaviour. Hut 8.5 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• It does look as if Abd has been repeating the same behaviour that got him topic banned in the first place. This is a bad sign, as topic bans should act as an indication that an editor needs to change their practices, and not as a temporary break. Hut 8.5 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And that "behavior" is? Not lying down and playing dead? What? Have you actually read the finding on the topic ban? I'm acting very differently than then. So what's the common factor? Read the report above. The common factor is an allegation of a POV. This, like other bans at Cold fusion is an attempted POV ban, of an editor who was following COI policy, which requires discussion, giving advice on Talk. It's that simple.

By the way, I am not editing Wikipedia any more, unless I get some indication from the community that it wants me to, and there has been too little of that to allow me to continue. I'm under personal attack here, which is why I'm responding, and I will continue to do that as long as it's permitted. You don't like these responses, advise those filing personal attacks to stop, don't blame the attempted victim. --Abd (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So to clarify, you will stop editing Wikipedia altogether once this thread is closed and nobody talks about you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was the plan. However, I also wrote that if banned, I'd appeal, and the reason for that is the protection of future editors from abusive bans. I will remind readers that I took two cases to ArbComm as an originating party, successfully, and that I'm permitted to do that, still, I'm not banned from it. I was thinking it wasn't worth it. I still don't know if it's worth it, but what I've been seeing is certainly adding to my motivation. I was thinking that this might quiet down and stop, and that I'd simply disappear. My conclusion was that Wikipedia was hopeless as to getting the attention that Cold fusion might need. I'm COI, I could do nothing without cooperation. So, my conclusion, useless. I'll build resources elsewhere, much easier, the boulder doesn't roll down the hill every day. However, there is another thing to consider. What JzG did to me he did to others, before, and, indeed, that's how I became involved. And it's not just JzG.

Anyway, is there any more dead horse beating to be done here? --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You were topic banned for tendentious editing and a problematic style of communication. In my opinion those problems have not gone away, and stating that opinion does not constitute a "personal attack". If it did then it would be impossible to enforce policies concerning disruptive editors. COI has nothing to do with it and it is still possible for an editor to be disruptive even if they only edit talk pages. Hut 8.5 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll document the "personal attack" claim. Hu, he's not only done this to me, he's done it to others. He lies, and shallow commentators like you just fall for it. That this happens on Wikipedia as much as it does is a structural problem, and nothing is being done about it, nor do I see any hope that anything will be done about it, which is why I'm bailing, overall. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reinvoking topic ban as general sanction

Abd, I just re-reviewed the developments here and on the meta.wiki spam blacklist thread.

It is clear to me that between the two pages, you have returned to the behavior you were previously sanctioned for. I AGF - I think you think you're doing a good and reasonable thing here, but in my judgement as an uninvolved administrator you're reverting to the exact same behavior and unrepentant and inappropriately righteous about doing so.

I am reimposing the topic ban as a general sanction, as authorized by Arbcom. I will log to your talk page and the Arbcom case enforcement page. I will link diffs for those here when done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs for User talk:Abd and Abd-WmC Arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Without having followed the backstory, Abd's comments above are pretty clear: "I'm far more interested in cold fusion than I am in Wikipedia." If so, ABD, you should focus on what you are interested in, and a topic ban will allow you to do so.  Sandstein  21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So much for caring about Wikipedia, Sandstein. That's why I'm not caring myself, people like you stopped caring and fell into running a private club. I'll benefit from the ban, I have no doubt about it. Don't worry about me. Worry about the project, which is sliding, and, when the faction I confronted is active, NPOV goes out the window. Look at the filing here. This Guy is an admin. Is that conduct appropriate for an admin? He lied to you, Sandstein, and to the rest of us. And, yet, I'm the problem? Sure I am. For people like him and far too many of you. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a chat with Abd earlier on and expressed the hope that he wouldn't repeat old mistakes. Well, those ancient errors have resurfaced in full array. --TS 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened, Tony, is that the same people who worked very hard to get me banned before -- remember when two-thirds of commentors at RfC/JzG 3 were screaming for me to be banned, when what I'd done was file an RfC with evidence fully accepted by ArbComm later -- simply ran the same numbers, and continued the same very obvious and outrageous POV-pushing. They tolerate "fringe editors" who don't know how to find the sources and to point out policy, but someone like me, even though all I was doing was pointing to sources and to an obvious understanding of the field, obvious to anyone who knows it and who knows the sources, is really a threat. I was warned that I'd be banned as soon as I dared to edit again. Even though I followed COI rules meticulously.

As an uninvolved administrator, I fully support the reinstatement of all prior ARBCOM-sanctions related to this user. Sanctions are meant to alter behavior, the prior sanctions did not, so they need to be reinstated. It is as simple as that. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• From this venue, the Community usually considers enacts its own sanctions or it considers appeals of ones imposed under ArbCom remedies. In this case, the Community is doing a combination of both - it was considering imposing a sanction and it's reviewing one imposed under ArbCom remedies which Abd was going to appeal (which Abd would've been required to appeal here before going to ArbCom). If there is support for this sanction, it would be appropriate for the restrictions to be imposed concurrently as a Community topic ban (logged at WP:RESTRICT). Accordingly, as with all sanction discussions, please state your level of involvement when commenting in this section. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• As a somewhat involved admin (noing on Cf, but prior positive and negative interactions with AbD), I think that we should reinstate sanctions. The nature and scope of and,s actions are nearly identical to the actions which drew sanction in the first place. We don't need to re-litigate this in order to come to a decision. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A decision has already been made, Protonk. An admin intervened under the discretionary sanctions re Cold fusion. This is better than the older ban because there is a supervising admin, who seems like a fair sort. We'll see if it is necessary to escalate this, it might not be necessary. How about not beating a dead horse? --Abd (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I musta missed the archive box. Protonk (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Metawiki role

As an aside - Abd asked on his talk page what role his participation in the metawiki spam blacklist played in the topic ban, given that that's a separate external wiki and neither en.wikipedia admins nor Arbcom have authority over metawiki per se (which is correct).

As I have responded in more detail on Abd's talk page [52], though that behavior is out of scope for our administrative activities here, it does form part of a picture of what Abd's current overall behavioral attitude is regarding Cold fusion topics and Wikipedia as a whole. It was brought to all of our attention as part of Guy's filing and further discussed by Abd. That discussion formed part of the total picture of Abd's ongoing behavior that in my mind merited the topic ban being reinstated, along with edits he made to the Cold Fusion talk page after this AN discussion began, user talk page edits, and the conversation here.

I do not believe that it's wrong to take note of external issues as they bear directly into english Wikipedia ongoing operations and content issues (as the metawiki spam blacklist does) nor as they bear directly into a users' overall behavior and attitude (as Abd's behavior did here). It is somewhat unusual for it to come up, though, so him asking about it and my explaining it is a reasonable question, and I'll answer any additional reasonable questions raised here or his talk page from it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps JzG needs a sanction too?

Unfortunately, Abd's obsessiveness on the topic of cold fusion provides what might be justification for the topic bans he has received; however, he is not the only obsessive involved in the related debates. JzG, in particular, appears to have an obsession with ensuring Abd is stopped from editing and the sites he likes are blacklisted, which is of a magnitude similar to Captain Ahab's obsession with finding Moby Dick. Perhaps a topic ban for him from any discussions pertaining to Abd or lenr-canr.org is justified? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan. You made nine edits since June, most of them on articles, then you show up here and make two comments attacking JzG for raising legitimate concerns. That's okay, and nothing wrong with it. Except, well, doesn't that mean JzG is your Moby-Dick, according to your perception of how these things work? --TS 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I will document either here or elsewhere the egregious lies that JzG told here and in other fora. I will start with due process on this, I've asked GWH some questions on my Talk page, and I'll determine where to go from there. It's very serious. I took JzG up to ArbComm before, and I've just been provided with a fast track, he will be a party again, and this time, we'll see if ArbComm, which warned him before, is so lenient. I'd suggest looking at RfAr/Abd and JzG. Sure, ArbComm dinged me for my style. However, the biggest complaint was that I didn't take it through dispute resolution quickly enough. If the project continues to tolerate what came down here (and with Pcarbonn before), it's dead, at least as any kind of neutral encyclopedia is concerned. It's neutral only when and where people like JzG don't sink their teeth into it. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding JzG - I don't see a problem personally but when I have imposed a sanction on one party in a multiparty dispute of some sort and not the other one, and it's raised back up, I ask for additional uninvolved third-party admin review. I would encourage other admins to review Guy's conduct and comment here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin and I have not looked specifically at the recent events. But in an earlier case to which this one looks superficially very similar, JzG went to great lengths, including misrepresenting facts and then refusing to communicate when it was pointed out, in order to keep a convenience link out of the Martin Fleischmann article. Up till then I had thought that JzG really cares about BLP. But in that instance he fought with unfair means just to make it harder for readers to read Fleischmann's own account of his fall into disgrace. If he is trying the same stunt again now (as I said I haven't checked this), then a sanction would be more than appropriate. See Talk:Martin Fleischmann/Archive 1 for the previous incident, which unfortunately was a very chaotic discussion. (In the end JzG lost because he was verifiably wrong, but that's hard to see.) Hans Adler 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for efficiency

GWH, thanks. (And thanks as well to Hans Adler.) I've made some serious charges about JzG, and I see that Hans has confirmed a piece of them (JzG continued that behavior with lenr-canr.org in other places, including, most recently, at meta in the place cited by GWH). However, this is probably not the best venue to consider them.

If GWH persists with his ban (I can see why he'd think this ban appropriate, and I was banned for so long -- way over a year -- that a bit more time is trivial), then I have a fast track to ArbComm, and I assume that I'd raise the underlying issues, which ArbComm did address before. JzG, among other misrepresentations, hasn't told the true story of my ban and the basis for it, and this is what he also did with Pcarbonn in January. So, GWH, if you see the basis for some kind of restriction for JzG, you can issue it, under the same discretionary sanctions as you applied to me. You could also do that later, after more review of the evidence, or you can do it temporarily, pending review. I'm fine for this to close as-is and we can continue, you and I, discussing the ban to see if ArbComm can be avoided. Let's keep it simple.

I'm not big on banning anyone, but I'm not so happy when editors try to ban others because they disagree with them. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and pending revisions

I have a quick question concerning how to handle vandalism within a "pending revision". Obviously, in a case of vandalism the pending revision should not be accepted. Under those circumstances, is it still correct to issue the standard escalating warning to the user who attempted to vandalize an article (I use Twinkle for doing this), or is some other warning type more appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes don't modify vandalism warnings. If it's so egregious I would have blocked without a warning, I will continue to do so despite the fact that some Wikipedia users were prevented from seeing the vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism, even if it's, shall we say... say... nevermind, I can't come up with a good analogy... Either way, it's non-constructive, it's against policy, and vandalism to PC-protected articles should be reverted and the user warned, just like any other vandal. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice. I will continue to apply warnings as I did before the introduction of "pending revisions". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Y'all should also probably update this. Steveozone (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

Hi! There is a backlog of two hours, in some cases, over at WP:AIV. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unbacklogged. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Should bots ever have reviewer rights?

Resolved

 – Anti-vandalism bots will typically receive the reviewer flag to prevent reviewers having to review their reverts. –xeno^talk 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice that some bots, such as XLinkBot (talk · contribs), have reviewer rights. This is inadvisable under the current configuration of the pending changes software, since it can result in the automatic acceptance of vandalism. Suppose that an article under the highest level of pending changes protection (accept=reviewer), is vandalized by user A. Subsequently, user B adds a prohibited external link, which is reverted by XLinkBot. The resulting revision, still containing the vandalism by user A, will be automatically accepted. (Also see the discussion of other automatic acceptance problems at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Design_flaw_in_pending_changes_protection.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think it would be the same with adminbots - do they need said bit to carry out whatever tasks they are set to do? –MuZemike 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any bots approved specifically to review edits. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in most cases an unneeded user right won't do any harm in the absence of a malfunction, since the bot simply won't use it. But the reviewer right causes edits to be automatically accepted whether you like it or not; the sysop bit might result in unwanted editing of fully protected pages. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As the second operator of XLinkBot, I'd like to comment here. I have been thinking about that, and actually, I don't really know. In principle, it would not be different than, say, editor A is vandalising the page, but it goes unnoticed, and editor B, with an autoreview bit (but who does not care about it), is adding some info (and ignoring the 'there are pending changes'). Of course, the bot would not care by definition, and therefore the autoreview-right should be removed. Leaving the edit unreviewed would 'enforce' an individual check of both the 'new editor's edit' and the bot edit, to see whether the link might have been of use, or was really 'in violation' of WP:COPYRIGHT/WP:NOT/WP:EL/WP:SPAM/WP:COI.

On the other hand, most of the reverts by XLinkBot would revert back to a reviewed version, and therefore it would be great if the edits were autoreviewed (as otherwise it does give a lot of work). Maybe I should have a look into the data, and see if XLinkBot could actually detect whether the to-revert-to version is reviewed, and review automatically then, leaving it unreviewed if not. (P.S. for me .. I think it is better removed, and have no objection against removal). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• When editing with the reviewer right, there's no choice to "detect whether the to-revert-to version is reviewed, and review automatically then, leaving it unreviewed if not": any revision produced as a result of the edit will be automatically accepted. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think if a page is reverted back to a previously reviewed version, no matter who reverted it, it is automatically reviewed and accepted. Could be wrong though. NW (Talk) 13:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell from a quick perusal, XLinkBot doesn't use the rollback tool. It just loads the old revision's wikitext and saves. MediaWiki cannot tell that that is a rollback, and hence doesn't treat it any differently to any other ordinary edit in this regard. Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that it works in this way. The revision of user A is not accepted because they, supposedly, do not have the 'autoreviewer' right. The revision of user B is not accepted either because the previous revision (of user A) is unaccepted. The revision of XLinkBot will not be accepted because the previous revision (of user B) is not approved. The undoing is actually not different from an ordinary edit. On the other hand if the edit of user B is rollbacked (to the revision of user A) as opposed to undone, the resulting revision will not be accepted as well, because the revision of user A is not accepted. This is my understanding. Ruslik_Zero 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Pending changes: all edits by reviewers are "visible immediately" (automatically accepted.) To prevent the inadvertent acceptance of vandalism, etc, when editing an unapproved version of a page, the edit form will display the following text: "The edit form below includes changes that have not yet been accepted." Bots not specifically designed to notice this language will simply proceed anyway, insensible to the potential problem. Furthermore, "reviewer" rights are very different from "autoreviewer" privileges, despite the similar names. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In the case you describe, don't you have to explicitly check the box to accept the revision? –xeno^talk 15:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You're right. It seems that I'm mistaken as to exactly how the PC protection works; the issue I'm describing won't actually arise. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've had a little look around. As far as I can see, a 'bot editing via api.php doesn't actually possess any way to check that particular checkbox when making an edit. It's simply not supplied as part of MediaWiki's editing functionality there. Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, then it looks like any bot (which uses api.php) can safely be run with the reviewer right (and should be, for bots that edit quite frequently, to avoid creating a backlog of unreviewed revisions that differ from the last accepted revision only by a bot edit.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The bot would have to use action=review if it wanted to mark its edit as reviewed. So yes, it can't check the "Accept the pending changes" checkbox, but it can get the same effect with little extra work if it really needs to. Anomie⚔ 16:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, I see my confusion. XLinkBot is an autoreviewer .. and will not be anymore in a couple of secs. XLinkBot does not have botrights so that its edits do show up in the recent changes (both to catch real spammers on the fly, as well as keeping an eye on its reverts for various reasons). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)strike that .. the bot is reviewer .. I am too confused, logging off and coming back tomorrow. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Xeno asked me to comment here about User:DASHBotAV running with autoreviewer:

The bot has one job: To revert vandalism found in the article,file,category, and template space. I thought giving autoreviewership to anti-vandalism bots was standard procedure, but alas I could not find any policy page that verifies my suspission. I am neutral on this issue, and grant full permission for the bot to be de-autoreview-ed (gosh that's a mouthfull). Regards, Tim1357 ^talk 03:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on my revised understanding of the technical aspects of flagged protection, that shouldn't be necessary; bots can safely be run with the reviewer right, since only modifications of previously approved revisions will be automatically reviewed. Peter Karlsen (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in giving a flagged bot "autoreviewer" (a.k.a. Autopatrolled), as flagged bots already have the autopatrol right. As noted above, the "autoreviewer" group has nothing to do with the "reviewer" group. Anomie⚔ 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD / redirect issue

Resolved

Someone has turned the Revelations redirect page, which used to and should redirect to Revelation (disambiguation), into an Iron Maiden song stub. The Revelations page is now up for AfD, so I don't believe anyone can just change it back to a redirect since that would wipe the AfD notice (right?)

What's the right way to fix this? I apologize if this is not the right place to ask this. 28bytes (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The AfD seems to be heading towards a redirect, so I'd just wait it out. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've split out the new revisions pertaining to the song and merged them with Revelations (Iron Maiden song). The AFD will continue regarding that page. The OP is slightly inaccurate however: prior to the redirect becoming an article it redirected to Revelation; after the history split, it now points there again. I have no opinion on which target is better. –xeno^talk 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Xeno. 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Blicking of the article “People of the Bayan” by a group of users without needed foundation by a way redirect of it to other article from different field.

Could you help to stop dishonest behaviour of some users at discussion of our article People of the Bayan please?

We have found two cases looks like falsification of some writings down and commentaries. Jeff300 and MARuseePESE constantly block the article People of the Bayan by a way of redirection of it to the art. Babism and they did it such soon as they could. They did the redirection without any explanation in writing 11:25, 9 September 2010 Smkolins (talk | contribs) () and 10:11, 9 September 2010 Jeff3000 (talk | contribs) () on page Revision history of People of the Bayan, but after our notes they placed their answer by back date. We call such their actions “hooliganism” (a form of vandalism), but they had placed their explanations by something and back date, and our note “hanged”. And now those users are propagating our notes on all commentaries to the People of the Bayan. We think that the actions of Jeff300 and MARuseePESE are dishonest, and we have not known where and how many times they used such their abilities in the discussion.

We also have not known who helped them from administrators. We did not wait for such their actions and did not do any archive of history of the discussion and now at once we are not able to find all cases of their dishonest actions. Therefore, if fact of their dishonest actions be corroborated, we ask administrators will block of those users in order to they have not any access to us because relationships have to be honest.

Itself discussion around of redirections of the article People of the Bayan on the article Babism is about nothing (see Talk:People of the Bayan. It is similar with intellectual trolling. That wrangle has been led to absurdity, since Jeff3000 and MARuseePESE say that the religion of the Bayan, which is motherly religion for religion of Bahai, is not in the nature. Bahai declare that the Holy Book of the religion of the Bayan is their own, e.g. the Holy Book of the religion of Bahai and they spiritually abolish the main its part on right of “owner”.

People of the Bayan believe that the religion of Bahai is a heresy. Bahai believe that the religion of the People of the Bayan is not and about that they have writings on different levels, from original writings of Baha to academic research and their chronicles, which they read, and on which they do notes in discussions. All rest sources, including the same levels, they ignore. They have a few technologies of ignorant. For example, they declare Holy Book of other religion of their property and as owner prohibit it (see above), or they change up status of academic publishing till a level higher than level of Holy Scripture, and therefore inaccessible and not understandable level for inhabitants and understandable only for “selected”, who interpret the source by in light of their thinking. For instance, Jeff3000 do such with works of Prof. E.G. Browne (see Jeff3000 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC) and Jeff3000 (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) on page Talk:People of the Bayan). They also impose arbitrary rule changing status of Scripture, for example, The Persian Bayan is Holy Scripture for a number of other religions and not historical book or Old Testament.

Probably, here whole team of fighters of religion war is, not only Jeff3000 and MARuseePESE. It is not excluded that similar fighters are and among administrators. They are determined by monotony of their falsifications. We are needed to write about that since without studying of regularity and reasons of the falsification in commentaries, it is difficult to understand the hidden false argumentation in their commentaries and to understand their co-ordinated actions. Inventcreat (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the Talk:People of the Bayan page, I am not personally convinced that the complaint is well justified. The other editors involved do indicate that reliable sources say the People of the Bayan are practicers of Babaism, so it could reasonably be redirected there. If you would want to make it a separate article, I think it would be incumbent on you to find reliable sources as per WP:RS which clearly indicate that the People of the Bayan are not adherents of Babaism. Without that evidence, I don't think there would be any real basis for having separate articles. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Inventcreat, I think you are looking for dispute resolution. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, have you tried to look through the article “People of the Bayan” itself?

Not all from the people of the Bayan practise the Babism, for a part of them the Babism is station of Forerunner. In the article the talking does not going about contemporary variety of followers/movements among the people of the Bayan. It has got limit only by historically reliable information, which be in keeping with WP:PS, for example, publications of the beginning of the 20-th century. Inventcreat (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ƒETCHCOMMS, We think it is still early to address to Arbitration with the article “People of the Bayan” and with the discussion. Many such things are, on which it can pay attention. For instance, algorithm, which has been used by Jeff3000 in the discussion about the article, contains logical operations of allegation: 1. primary sources are not secondary ones, 2. secondary sources are not primary ones, 3. third part sources are not secondary ones. Using the algorithm and accompanying it by examples (primary source and its name) description can take a form of reality, under which one can write any opinion even opposite. If we think it is better do not do it then it will be better to read itself the article “People of the Bayan”. Inventcreat (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, It would be good to protect the article “People of the Bayan” from vandalism even if temporary. Maybe in a time, when religion passions around of the article are calmed, users will start to read and to think, but will not press on the button “re-direction” as soon as their fingers can do it. If pretensions are to the article that possibly in a time some offers and observations to the article will come to a head. Possibly discussion will be consisted. Inventcreat (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, During the period from 17:28, 2 August to 10:00, 12 October passed 1576 hours and for the time the article “People of the Bayan” was accessible only 46 hours. It was done by users De728631, Jeff3000, Smkolins and (MARussellPESE). They redirected the article “People of the Bayan” to the article “Babism” 12 times, and they no one have shown why the articles are the same, or why one of them includes into itself other. In our opinion the article “People of the Bayan” have enough notes as on primary sources, and academic (secondary) sources, and third part sources (news).

The users, who redirected, ignore the article “People of the Bayan” itself and the notes on sources in the article. Anonymous users turn by deficiency for Wikipedia in the case since the anonymous users present interests of corporations, which are not registered in Wikipedia, but they conduct their own policy and at that play by policy of Wikipedia. Now we are researching deep of the latent corruption of Wikipedia on example of round block of the article. Inventcreat (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for a community topic ban of User:Tao2911 from Eido Tai Shimano and related pages

I first came upon this editor as a result of a post to the WP:BLPN in June 2010. Having tried hard, I now believe that this editor is a not net contributor to this article or related ones. User:Tao2911;s edits shown the classic signs disruptive editors. Many editors have noted the repeated problems with NPOV and violations of BLP policy. Since June 2010, the editor has been attempting to insert poorly sourced negative material into the biography of a living person Eido Tai Shimano. His edits have been the subject of multiple postings to the BLPN and reliable sources noticeboard by different editors; July 2010 July 2010 July 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010

The editor's conduct has been discussed on ANI in July 2010 and previously for issues related to other articles. The editor has been warned on their talkpage about personal attacks,"point violations", BLP violations and edit warring.

Of particular concern is their disregard for our BLP and V policies. S/he has used poor sourcing (e.g. blogs) but more worringly has repeatedly inserted material that are not in the citations given.(see [53][54][55][56][57][58]). Their edits are also slanted and breach NPOV standards. e.g.[59]. Editwarring against multiple editors to protect their preferred version has also occurred on multiple occasions (see the article logs for September/October for example [60]) In addition to the article related problems, Tao2911 attacks other editors, accusing them of vandalism, being "pro-Shimano fascist sexist trolls" bias, whitewashing and censorship, and has made disruptive, point making edits.

Besides the examples given above, the most recent edits are a case in point. Recently returned from an edit warring block, Tao2911 has, without any discussion as requested and commenced on the talkpage to delete sourced information that had been agreed to by editors on the talkpage, and more problematically still, to insert negative false material (in that it is contradicted by the citations given) :ie in this edit s/he adds "some of" to the sentence about Shimano's denials of allegations of sexual misconduct, a limitation not found in the sources given. This has been reverted, quite correctly, by another editor. In July User:EyeSerene explained that this kind of problematic, tendentious editing, especially on a BLP might eventually lead to sanctions.[61]. Several other editors have asked for restrictions on Tao2911 [62][63] I think we've tried long enough to help this editor learn the kind of standards (editorially and behaviourally) required on WP and especially a BLP article. It appears the editor is able to make useful contributions on other articles, and indeed one they have edited Adi Da was recently made a Good Article. However, the time has come for Tao2911 to be topic banned from this page and from any related pages that deal with Shimano, though perhaps others have other ideas. Slp1 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Slp1 gives a fair summary of events, and I concur with his request. I first visited the Shimano page after discovering it through WP:BLPN. Not knowing the history, at first I was sympathetic towards Tao's position. However, his disinclination to discuss things reasonably quickly changed that opinion. I am disturbed not only by what seems to me to be a tendency to accuse others of conspiracy when others disagree with him, but also by the pattern of highly tendentious editing. In Tao's absence, reasonable progress was made toward a consensus on this contentious article. That progress has been nullified by his edits and comments. His edits to Shimano are routinely improper per the BLP rules, and his interactions are difficult to perceive as good-faith discussions. It's definitely time for something more than a slap on the wrist, especially given Tao's history, as summarized above by Slp1. In my opinion, Tao's primary contribution to the Shimano page has been to unite opposing editors—through disbelief at his actions. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

After Slp1 summary and macwhiz statement I do not have much to add. While discussing matters in Shimano talk page, as well as in BLPN or RSN, I was struck by the manners of Tao and they way he responds to me and other editors. By now all of us, involved in editing this page, reached limit and it does not look we can find a way to cooperate with him. There is a consistent pattern in the way Tao is sabotaging efforts of others, who try to make this page balanced and complete. I support the request for banning Tao2911 from editing this and related pages. Spt51 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I got involved after seeing the issue raised at various noticeboards as detailed by Slp1 above, and have intermittently followed events since July. I have seen numerous examples confirming that Tao2911 will not understand basic procedures regarding a WP:BLP and sources. Reading various news reports makes it obvious what a Buddhist teacher has been doing for many years, but reliable reports use quite mild language, while Tao2911 would prefer something more direct. I endorse Slp1's statement above, and if no better solution can be found, I support a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tao 2911 will not understand basic procedures regarding a WP:BLP and sources". Reading today's discussion in POV section on Shimano page I am sorry to say, but I feel even stronger that he should be banned. Personally, I have a problem with they way he responds to editors and the language he uses. It was pointed out to him, but still the same pattern. Can someone explain to him what is appropriate and what is not? Spt51 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand WP:BLP perfectly clearly. Ban me, and you will simply hand the page to a concert of biased editors who wish to remove all mention of scandals surrounding Eido Shimano that have directly resulted in his retirement. I'm not going to draft the long list of dif's that would show this activity on behalf of partisan editors (Spt51 seems to have joined WP for this purpose) - a long list it would be, indeed - but check out the page history for yourselves. All I argue for again and again is a succinct description of the scandals that the New York Times describes as having "rocked the American Buddhist community."Tao2911 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alphathon made me fear getting blocked

Moved to WP:ANI#Alphathon made me fear getting blocked

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining "involved admin" more explicitly

I've started a discussion on this with a draft proposal here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposing community ban

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

---

Note to closing admins - This should remain open for a bare minimum of 48 hrs per existing community ban best practices, to allow for adequate community notice and review and comment period, then be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW? I wouldn't do it, but it's a point I felt i had to make. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

SNOW does not apply to ban discussions. 48 hrs bare minimum, to ensure everyone has their say. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Maiden City (talk · contribs)

The Maiden City is a long-term sockmaster, since his (second) indefinite block 18 months ago. See Category :Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Maiden City, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Maiden City and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive for details of his sockpuppetry. Current behaviour includes personal attacks, sectarian abuse, anti-Semitic abuse, edit warring, canvassing other editors to edit war on his behalf.

• 84.93.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.114.85.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.114.237.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.198.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.174.204.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• others vandalising this proposal already, it seems pointless to keep adding them though..

The contributions from those IPs from today alone should hopefully illustrate the problem. Nobody is likely to be unblocking The Maiden City any time soon, so it should be relatively easy to make this a formal ban? O Fenian (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Giving ourselves the ability to automatically revert all edits made by an abusive anti-semite seems like a no brainer. Community ban enables us to do this. Also, the IP that has just vandalized this entry needs to be blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Way ahead of you... TFOWR 16:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support de jure, adding to the existing de facto. Syrthiss (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support due to serial socking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think its over kill when (s)he is already indefinitley blocked but I see no reason to oppose it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The advantage of a comm ban is that any edits they make that aren't unambiguously good can be reverted, without fear of being blocked for edit warring. Editors need to avoid edit warring with indef blocked socks, but not with comm banned socks. TFOWR 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well we don't really need to worry about "unambiguously good" either, a ban means we've decided that the bad outweighs the good and it's best just to revert everything; that means if we see a sock we can simply go through their contribs list with rollback at hand if necessary. Anyone noticing a "good" edit being reverted could simply reinstate it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Has definitely got nothing good to add to our project. --John (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per persistent block evasion, sock-puppetry, personal attacks. Also per WP:BAN as I think this meets the criteria for "exhausting the community's" patience--Cailil ^talk 17:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, agree with everything stated by Cailil (talk · contribs), directly above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: nothing to add to the above comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the comments above express my opinion, no need to repeat them all. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - incorrigible time-waster. RashersTierney (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia, and perhaps the reverse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Purely disruptive sockmaster who has been indefinitely blocked, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Only aim of Maiden City and their socks is disruption. Mo ainm~Talk 17:04, 9 October 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.

Rai Muhammad Saleem Bhatti

Resolved

 – user turned out to be a sockpuppet being used to evade a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rai Muhammad Saleem Bhatti continues to make disruptive edits to biographical articles despite all our warnings. The user has made no attempts to communicate. Is the next step a request for comment, mediation, or can this concern be handled here? I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rai Muhammad Saleem Bhatti. Marcus Qwertyus 20:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that i would bother working on the RFC any further. This user has never edited an article talk page and has never responded to any comments on their own talk page. It's kind of hard to come to a voluntary agreement with someone who won't even speak to you. Let's see if he can show at least enough cluefullness to come here and explain themselves. This is a collaborative project, users need to be willing and able to communicate with other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Marcus Qwertyus 03:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Went back to check on him, and while combing through his contribs discovered very compelling evidence he is a WP:DUCK of User:Rai muhammad saleem akram bhatti, therefore now indef blocked for being a block evading sock account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A new game with the featured article

Just as a heads up for those admins who don't watch TFA or RfPP, but yesterday (Shield nickel) and today (Convoy GP55) there's been IP vandalism to redirect the TFA to [The Game (mind game)] (intentionally not wikilinked), which has resulted in batches of short semi-protection. It would be helpful if other admins could keep an eye out. Ta. GedUK  08:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just TFA; I reverted this [64] yesterday. Seems to be a variant on rickrolling, might need an edit filter. Acroterion _(talk) 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And this [65] by the same IP, now blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

They need to free themselves: [66] --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it is, having read the article, an attempt to make people lose the game, by making our most prominent articles redirect. An edit filter should be fairly simple to do, I'll make a request. GedUK  14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Related: TheGamer123 (talk · contribs). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Grr...Aside from the fact that I just lost the game, is an edit filter the best way to handle this? I'm just wondering what would happen if anyone needs to make a legitimate redirect sometime in the future, would there still be a way to do so? Overall, small concern, and assuming an edit filter will do the trick of stopping the redirecting, I'd say go for it and cross the bridge I just mentioned when the time comes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The filter can be set to deny non-autoconfirmed editors and to warn others. Acroterion _(talk) 15:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for clearing that up. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Filter 363, set to log only for now, editcount threshold 50. No hits yet. Thanks to EdoDodo. Acroterion _(talk) 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't imagine this will persist, so that's probably all the action we need to take, save for reverting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Filter got a few hits. Since all of them looked alright and there were no false positives I have gone ahead and changed it to disallow the edit. - EdoDodo ^talk 20:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I lose! --TS 00:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. The edit filter is doing quite a good job of catching the vandalism, and it seems to be quite common (about a dozen hits a day), so I'll leave it enabled. If the filter misses any edits, please let me know, preferably by email. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still picking it up. Good work I think! GedUK  11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bitches, I am the game. HalfShadow 23:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh... GedUK  11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work with the Edit Filter. On point of procedure, though - does the notice that says their edit was disallowed also inform them that they lost the game? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban Rich Zubaty

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

---

• 72.253.135.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.234.207.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richzubaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Therudeguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richieg622 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.56.103.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't

This situation more or less speaks for itself. Here we have a user that has edited from multiple accounts and ip addresses over the course of the last several years for the sole purpose of getting an article on either himself or his (self-published) book onto Wikipedia. When confronted about the relative notability of himself or his work, he becomes very aggressive and angry, and engages in ridiculous hyperbole, comparing Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies to living under the nazi regime or apartheid, despite the fact that it was people exactly like Mr. Zubaty, who believe in the inherent inferiority of a particular type of human being (in this case women) who headed those regimes. In any event, he refuses to acknowledge and abide by our policies and guidelines despite having them explained to him repeatedly and having been blocked repeatedly. Therefore I propose that Mr. Zubaty be indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia under any identity or ip address. I have informed Mr. Zubaty I would be taking this action at his current identity's talk page [67] and indicated that any statement he wishes to make here can be copied over from there. (I forget if current consensus is that we do these type of things here or at ANI, if it's ani this week, feel free to move this over there) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Ban (and yes, this is the right place)Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I reserve my judgment until I hear back his response to my comment at User talk:72.234.207.192. It's the direct type of statement that will immediately show if the cluefullness of an editor is strong enough that he will ever be viable to edit here again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• There's a somewhat longer, and annotated, list at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyright text at an AfD (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Tentative support Unless he can show that he is indeed able to cooperate with others, understand policy and accept it, he's only wasting his own time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per the long history of tendentious editing and personal attacks. One of his comments to the talk page a proponent of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't was: "Who built the house you live in and the roads you drive on? Opera? No men. Men just like me. You live in a world built by us and think it's your job to critique it and approve it. No wonder the muslims are on the march in Europe. You have no business deleting my page because you know nothing about men." This user's goals are incompatible with the project's. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is why we recommend to people not to edit articles about themselves: one ends up making oneself look like a pathetic, inconsequential nobody -- even when one is clearly notable & accomplished. This Zubaty guy just might be notable in the specialized niche of Men's Liberation -- I've heard about this topic off & on over the years, so I'm not blowing smoke -- but after reading the links Beeblebrox provided above, I see that he has managed to go about this all wrong. But I'm only saying that he might be notable rhetorically: I doubt he's even notable in that specialized niche subject. -- llywrch (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support .. whether or not he is notable or his books are notable is not to him to decide. Does not seem to get it after a handful of deletions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban based on past and recent history of repeatedly aggressive behavior and countinual self-aggrandizemant and self-promotion. I do not think Zubaty's editing activities are remotely congruent with Wikipedia policies governing content and behavior. I think Zubaty's behavior leading up to Beeblebrox's 9 May 2010 extension and hardening of the block on 72.253.135.100 (talk · contribs), Zubaty's last major IP, probably justified such a harsh IP block (although Beeblebrox had clearly become overly involved and should have deferred to another admin). However, I think the current claims at User talk:72.234.207.192 (permalink) of Zubaty violating some sort of editing ban (effectively asserted here and backed up in the unblock decline) in are over the top. I find it entirely plausible that Zubaty's resumption of editing on 4 October 2010 at IP 72.234.207.192 was believed to not violate any Wikipedia rules. Unless someone can point to a wider discussion that supported a six month ban on Zubaty's contributions with a clear message informing Zubaty of this, it's too much to assume that he has violated Wikipedia policies on this charge. His behavior: yeah, definitely. But not this aspect of block/ban evasion that has been alluded to. — Scientizzle 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• He was blocked for six months in May, he came back under another ip and edited again after five months. He was told when he was blocked that the duration was six months. He wrote a whole book, I assumed he knew how to count to six. There was no ban, just a block. However, this ban discussion is not so much about block evasion as it is about Mr. Zubaty's attitude and apparent goals being inconsistent with Wikipedia content and behavioral policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• The point of my comment was that I would object to a full ban predicated on any claims of block or ban evasion, as I don't think those conditions were properly established. Based on his behavior alone, however, I find no compelling reason to extend any further editing privelages to Mr. Zubaty. I just felt it was appropriate to separate the issues for maximal clarity, as a benefit to myself and perhaps others. — Scientizzle 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• In any event it appears Mr. Zubaty has elected to not to speak in his own defense for purposes of this ban conversation. In about two hours this discussion will have been open for a full two days, and at the present time there is unanimous support for a formal ban. All we need now is an uninvolved party to close this up and inform Mr. Zubaty of the result. I don't know if it is worth bothering, but there is also the issue of the various sock accounts. Most of them are long inactive so there is little need for a block, but maybe they should at least be tagged in case they should resume editing in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  He might be busy. We really do want to give someone full time to respond, lest there be any appearance of impropriety or acting too hastily. This is a ban conversation after all. Magog the Ogre (talk)

• I considered that possibility, but he seems to have endless time to argue when an article about him is up for deletion. Not that I am in a particular hurry either, he is currently blocked and I'm certainly not seeing a groundswell of support for him here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban. However, if the subject were to be open to adoption by a more experienced editor as per WP:ADOPT, and there was an "adopter" willing to work with him, then maybe, maybe, allowing him to continue to edit elsewhere might make sense. Even then, I think there would have to be a ban of significant length from all content related directly to him, and that ban would be measured by the degree and amount of editing he were to do in material not related to himself. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think Zubaty is here to be an editor, he is just here to self-promote. Therefore, I believe that he would not be open to adoption. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - user is here only to self-promote. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 11 October 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.

Username block advice

Adahater101 (talk · contribs) appeared on my watchlist after vandalising articles about two communities in Hardin County, Ohio, including the city of Ada. Given the username and the edits, I've levied an indefinite block, but I'm not sure which template to place: in cases such as this, is it more appropriate to use {{Uw-ublock}} or {{Uw-uhblock}}? By themselves, the edits aren't enough to warrant a block, but even if the user had made only constructive edits to these articles, I would have blocked on a username basis alone, and that's the thing I want to concentrate on for the block message. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I mention this user's edits of Hardin County topics because of the city of Ada — if there were no Ada in Hardin County or the surrounding area, I wouldn't have realised that the username was "Ada Hater". Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, I simply use {{uw-voablock}} for an SPA like that. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 2#June 2010 West Bank shooting

Resolved

 – Discussion closed as "no consensus to overturn". RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 2#June 2010 West Bank shooting? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus to overturn in there. Secret ^account 01:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, thank you for your thoughtful close. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

I noticed that several editing restrictions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions have expired. Some have been expired for 8 months. Should they be removed from the list? I would do it myself, but based on the nature of the page I thought I should ask first. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. It is helpful to know that users used to be under editing restrictions, especially when they fall back into old habits. --Jayron32 05:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe the list could be cleand up by placing the expired restrictions in a new section at the bottom of the list. If said section gets too large, it can always be moved to a subpage. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that logs of former restrictions should only be on a subpage, not on the main page; that this subpage shouldn't be transcluded on the main page; and that if we create it, we look back at the history and make sure to include all the ones which have been removed form the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Community restrictions are up to date anyway; if any are out of date, they are ArbCom's, so I'll make them aware. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio on Main Page

The Joan Sutherland image is a crop of this photo: http://www.nndb.com/people/674/000083425/ And the original uploader has a talk page red with copyright violations. Please delete and replace! Thanks Hekerui (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted T:ITN to the previous image. Original uploader was Conmaleta (talk), I agree that image does seem to be taken from here. Still looking into this. TFOWR 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As we are not using the copyvio image, I have deleted the local crop. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Criticisms?

Resolved

 – I fixed the problem. Enigma^msg 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the noticeboard belong there? I haven't seen any prior discussion of this. Enigma^msg 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found it. Fixing now. Enigma^msg 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I think that was me. Sorry. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Snow?

Perhaps a previously uninvolved admin could take a moment to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Norgrove, to determine whether a snow close is in order? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though there's very, very little chance this article gets deleted, I think there would be far less drama if the AfD were to remain open for the full 7 days. -Atmoz (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very informative for the discussion currently underway at WT:NOT. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute

This is a heads up for a proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute See: Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#RFC: Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute -- PBS (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

General question

Given the various things that Wikipedia is not, is there anything that can be done about an editor when 94% of their edits are to Wikipedia space, article talk or user talk, and under 5% are actually article edits? (And no template or category edits at all, but a few to files.) Such an editor seems to be here to discuss, or push a POV, not to improve the encyclopedia. Can anything be done, or is everything dependent on there being bad behavior from the editor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To the point: That sort of editing distribution wouldn't be surprising if an editor primarily contributed media (sounds, pictures) and did some related WP space work, such as helping with the featured sound or featured picture candidates. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it you are not going to tell us who you are talking about? Anyway, if there is no "bad behavior" then why should we "do something" to them? Sure, it would be nice if fewer folks spent their entire time here griping and fighting and actually worked on the encyclopedia instead, but i don't believe there is any rule that says they have to. If you can provide evidence that they are here to push some POV agenda that is another matter, but if they just don't work on articles but aren't actually causing a disruption it's probably best to just ignore them as much as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You could ask them if they have considered running for adminship - nobody misses my article contributions... LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Those willing to spend a lot of time sorting out the mechanics of wikipedia, resolving disputes, helping other users, etc. are just as valuable as those who contribute large amounts of content to the encyclopaedia. You're proposing we sanction constructive editors who happen to do most of their work out of article space? You may as well start with me then (and LessHeard vanU) Sorry for volunteering you there ;). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My pie slice is pretty close to what you're describing, actually. sonia♫ 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mine comes a hell of a lot closer. When I first read this post I was almost certain the OP was talking about me. Though art the man as Nathan said to David. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think the take-home message here is that while wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, there are many ways of editing constructively without focussing on mainspace, and I suspect that attempting to sanction users who choose to operate primarily in non-mainspace areas will result in the end of wikipedia as we know it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the opinions, I appreciate them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mind you, this is not the venue to get a really project wide range of opinions - mostly because a lot of the people who may take the alternative view to those expressed above are occupied in the writing of content. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• @LHVU: Yes... well, I wasn't thinking about admins, who obviously have legitimate reasons to spend a lot of time in places other than mainspace - although, even there, I think the best admins remain well-involved with article editing, which is (after all) our core. In any event, what other venue would you recommend as a place to get a wider range of views? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Some people might consider that now the encyclopedia has grown so rapidly, it has reached a "Maintenance Phase" and as such article edits are less crucial. I seem to recall this being discussed over at everyone's favourite website for the mentally un-hinged rather more sanely then on Wikipedia as it goes. The irony was delightful. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The obvious flaw in the maintenance phase argument is that the overwhelming majority of wikipedia's articles are complete shite. Why have a corps of knights janitors dedicated to the maintenance of shite? Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is so that all articles either do not become more shitty (this applies to all of them - good or bad) or are flushed down the toilet. Airplaneman ✈ 22:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well there are always WP:Alternative outlets. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And the relevance of your comment with that rather unhelpful and insulting blue link is what? Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that if you want to call all of our collective contributions "shite", no one's forcing you to contribute to the project. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you do NPP, you do run into a lot of this. Airplaneman ✈ 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. My contributions to the improvement of WP is by (gently) nudging articles that have to business here out the back door. This typically involves me tagging an article and dropping notices on the author's talk page. This means that I'm getting about 1~3 User talk notices for every mainspace edit? Does this make me a bad WikiPedian? Hasteur (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the learned GiftigerWunsch is of the opinion that my time would be better spent elsewhere, and he may well be right. His reasoning is faulty on several levels though, but I can't be bothered to argue with him. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The concept that we are in the maintenance phase by no means is meant to indicate that Wikipedia is "finished" and just needs upkeep. The idea is that, for the most part, we already have article on subjects that are actually notable. It's also true that many of those articles suck ass and need lots of help. The problem is that instead of helping our existing articles most new users, and some very experienced ones as well, just want to keep creating new articles so they have bragging rights or whatever, and will stretch the concept of notability to rather absurd extremes in order that they might be allowed to keep creating articles instead of working on the several million articles that are already in dire need of cleanup, better sourcing, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed; unfortunately while randomly looking up some random terms I want extra information about, I almost invariably find myself making at least a few clean-up edits to that article while doing so. Without the many editors dedicated to helping clean up articles, as well as helping to resolve conflicts which would lead to serious problems in mainspace, I shudder to think what description Malleus might reserve for wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • if you're looking for a fight then you've come to the right shop. I'd suggest instead though that you consider engaging your brain before posting here again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Beeblebrox) It's an awful lot more more work to improve an article than it is to write a new one, and as you say, it comes with far fewer bragging rights. Little wonder that so many prefer to write new crap. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Obviously a stub is ripe for expansion and improvement. A more mature article may require more work to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and a willingness to grasp the topic at hand, realise what is and what is not important to a reader's understanding of the topic; but doing that really only requires some general knowledge and an ability to take the time to work on it. This is not only a learning process on the part of the editor, but also is a valuable input into improving "defective" articles". Maybe not an ideal development process, but at least a step forward, if done properly. But my experience is that such steps will only be taken by those with the confidence in their own ability so to do. So bald statements about competence really do not help. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are you disagreeing with? Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean you don't know? Rodhullandemu 00:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No I don't know, so I ask you again. Who were you disagreeing with? Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing both you and Giftiger. There is really no use arguing over this; it is a waste of time better spent elsewhere, helping this encyclopedia become less shitty. Airplaneman ✈ 02:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the original poster (& ignoring a lot of unhelpful comments), I think the most important factor in your hypothetical situation lies in your comment, "Such an editor seems to be here to discuss, or push a POV, not to improve the encyclopedia." If someone's intent is not to improve the encyclopedia, then it really doesn't matter where they are active: we don't want them. I only hope that anyone betraying this intent in meta space will be shown the door faster than in any topic area. On the other hand, if they are contributing in apparent good faith, that will make matters more difficult to resolve. -- llywrch (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Llywrhc - "Good faith" is an interesting thing -- I have no doubt that the editor in question is being perfectly straight-forward about expressing their opinions, but it's still POV-pushing nonetheless. They certainly aren't dedicated to NPOV, and it's a contentious topic area, but still... Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the original question, I was immediately reminded of a certain editor who contributes almost nothing to the encyclopedia other than jokes and pure personal opinion, especially at ANI. I have occasionally brought this up, but for some reason this person seems to be too popular to get even an ANI ban through against them. The editor is apparently part of a subculture that seems to be forming around WP:Reference desk. (There is nothing wrong with the reference desk, but involvement in that doesn't qualify anyone for discussions related to encyclopedic content or behaviour of editors in article space, and is most certainly not an excuse for consistently providing personal opinion where rational arguments are required.) Hans Adler 10:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@HA - What a wonderfully coy passive-aggressive comment! No, I'm afraid the editor you speak of does not meet the profile I was referring to, since his percentage of article edits is more than 5 times larger than I specified. Nice try though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought you must be talking about someone else, because when I checked with WikiChecker for the user's last 10000 edits I found a a little less than 10%, not 25%. But fortunately when I wanted to recheck right now it was down and I found X!'s edit counter instead, which I guess is where you have the number from. The user's editing pattern seems to have shifted almost completely from editing an encyclopedia to social networking. In any case I only said who came to my mind when I saw your question. Hans Adler 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about an editors motives / intentions then you should be glad that 94% of their edits are on talkpages where they can do no damage to the article content itself without others assisting them. Out of control talkpages with POV flying around in all directions is in my opinion far less problematic than an editor making a large number of POV edits to articles which seriously undermines wikipedias status as a neutral source of information. There are no rules about how much or how little someone need contribute to this project, its all voluntary. If they have not violated the rules, they have not done anything wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@BW: Yes, I considered that very point, better on the talk page then in the article, but (as I'm sure you know) such an editor, here to push and not to improve, can make talk pages an absolute hell-hole and destroy any hope of there being a collegial atmosphere; therein lies the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I guess you & I don't exactly agree on what "contributing in good faith" means. My usual approach to problems on Wikipedia is based on the principle of least work. For example, my usual approach to other Wikipedians I find problematic is to simply ignore them -- unless they do or write something I feel is so stupid that I'm compelled to respond. Another approach to problematic Wikipedians is to have an off-Wiki discussion with them. In both of these tactics -- ignoring or an off-Wiki discussion -- an individual doing what you described above in good faith will likely stop do that. (Well, I hope that one would.) The reason that if someone is truly contributing to Wikipedia in good faith, she/he will cease unproductive or harmful behavior once they are aware people don't approve of it; this is the principle behind the rule "It is easy to make useful contributors leave, but no matter how hard you try unuseful ones never will."

Now your further statement that "an editor, here to push and not to improve, can make talk pages an absolute hell-hole and destroy any hope of there being a collegial atmosphere", sheds more light on the issue. If this kind of person is disrupting the work on talk pages, despite all attempts, both direct & indirect, to convince them to knock it off, she/he is not acting in good faith. Sometimes the solution which requires the least work is a straight-out, bum's rush indefinite block of a person. There are some people who don't get it, don't want to get it, or never will get it, & if a clue-by-four like that doesn't make it clear they need to change their ways, nothing will. -- llywrch (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer the orginal question about can anything be done to the unnamed editor, I would leave them alone unless they have broken some rule which I don't see. This project needs every type/area of editor possible! Even the one who only jokes around on ANI, believe it or not. I always use the Grateful Dead analogy and Bill Graham's quote: They might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do. To try to compile the sum of ALL human knowledge, editable by 6 billion folks, needs the largest spectrum of contributors possible....for better or worse of course ;)....--Threeafterthree (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes

This was closed, but no result was posted. (actually it looks like the initial close was contested[68]) Wondering if an uninvolved admin (or an uninvolved anyone else) would care to take a crack at adding a closing statement that reflects the results, as it now stands there is no summary, it's just boxed. Even "no consensus" would be better than no statement at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I am uninvolved, and I totally agree with the original closing statement of "No consensus to change wording or to allow vandalism sandboxes". However, I let someone else a little bit more experienced add a closing statement. -Atmoz (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"You've Got" the Touch

Can someone please histmerge You've Got the Touch and "You've Got" the Touch? It seems there was a copypaste move at some point. The correct page is "You've Got" the Touch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I'm not sure which version you want to display the actual content so I just restored the most recent non-redirect edit. I hope this works out well. —Soap— 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New admin question re deletion log

An account that just showed up at UAA created, as its first action, the article Firing of U.S. Inspector General Gerald Walpin controversy. This has the look to me of a previously created article, but I can't find it by searching the deletion log. I'm wondering if there is a better method of searching for deleted articles that match a set of criteria, or if I'm simply doing something wrong. (Or, of course, if the article is really new in spite of the circumstances.) Looie496 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably looking for this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's banned user User:Grundle2600. Deleted, blocked. WP:RBI. Rd232 ^talk 01:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there really is a way to search redlinks for content that was once there but now isn't. One can however make searches like this one to try to look for AFDs that might match. NW (Talk) 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Grundle needs a new hobby... --Jayron32 02:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, it never occurred to me I could search for the AfD. Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

• Fox News Channel controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Fox News Channel, Fox News Channel controversies, user:SemDem
• [69]

It appears this article has received a large amount of off-wiki requests for editing. The article has had to be protected twice, and I'm pessimistic about its future given the tone on the talk page. The recent RFC is something ridiculous like 250KB, and as you can see above, there is clear evidence of off-site canvassing. Is there some sort of sanctions we can draw up concerning this article without involving ArbCom? I'm afraid I stepped into an ugly mess by protecting this article, a mess I'm not prepared to see through to the finish lest it eat up all my time here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Even ArbCom might not be able to handle such a large case if comments from meatpuppets swamped the case page. I haven't been involved in this, but if it is a very major issue, I'd keep up the fullprot, start a new RfC with clear organization and clear goals, and then hope for consensus some way or another. Then, any editor who breaches the terms of the RfC can be warned, then blocked, without more arguing about. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that we place the article (and any related ones, as necessary) under community-based General Sanctions similar to Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions immediately, to head off the problem before it becomes unmanageable. It has been done in the past, with mixed results, but I think it is worth trying in cases of off-wiki collaboration or meatpuppeting. We could either use AN/ANI for enforcement request, or establish a separate sanctions noticeboard, or even revive WP:CSN to handle community-enacted probation enforcement. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, we could probably apply this to most of the pages in Category:Criticisms and its subcats, which are almost universally problem articles. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am pessimistic about the need for a separate noticeboard. AN/ANI should work fine (as would simply merging the general sanctions noticeboards and WP:AE). The idea about the use of discretionary sanctions is a good one though. NW (Talk) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community Sanctions idea WordSmith makes a good argument and its much needed IMO, it will also centralize allow us to centralize and future discussions and actions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support CS Seems reasonable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that community probation will be helpful here. I'd be happy to endorse the protection in a way that that it doesn't become a centre of controversy, but I don't see the point of us going into this repeated cycle of where we impose this then it eventually needs to go to ArbCom anyway and then ArbCom accepts and then they impose discretionary sanctions which go hand in hand with AE. That's all that I can foresee from the suggestions so far. An alternative is changing this into a Community request that ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions (without, at this time, trying to address specific individual editors, which would be the real time-eater); that seems more suitable for the particular circumstances here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What I'm proposing is not like the failed Climate Change sanctions, rather I want standard discretionary sanctions, but without the months-long hassle of an Arbcom case. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The issue is that WP:AE is an AC page; if anything gets confusing or goes wrong, AC puts a lid on it (as they know the circumstances of the case for which they put discretionary sanctions - particularly ones which are especially drafted for a particular topic). When CC probation was enacted, they thought they importing something that was standard (they happened to copy every textual bit of Obama probation, as well as every page) - the reason it failed was for that same reason; what I'd specifically drafted for Obama probation with a specific type of operation doesn't to work in all other disputes; it's not quite-so "standard". Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support community sanctions. I assume the concern is that ArbCom discretionary sanctions will take too long to handle the ever-mounting piles of unpleasantness over there. I also like the idea that the community acts of its own accord to define certain topics as so contentious that they need to be editing more slowly, carefully, and civilly. It's bad when individual admins try to start imposing such rules, but if there is enough community support to say "Hey! Calm down already!" it seems like a good thing to me. Of course, we'll need wider input for this....Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• This section got prematurely archived, i'm putting it back. What is the next step here? The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No it didn't; it was archived due to inactivity. A project-wide scheme cannot be put in place on the basis of limited input otherwise the entire project would be free to use discretionary sanctions (in reality, the Community specifically rejected this). The next step is for administrators to demonstrate that they've used all of the tools available to them in this area; that may include making a few proposals in relation to specific editors here with the specific restrictions they have in mind and seeing how the Community respond to these, and in more clear cases, blocks. If it does turn out that all the restrictions that need to be imposed have been via the Community, there's no need for anything else because it's just a handful of editors (some of whom might be treated as a single entity). If it doesn't, that's when your proposal will be ready for enactment. Steps need to be taken before shortcuts can be used. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears that everyone except you is in favor of some sort of community sanctions scheme, so now we need to determine the exact scope and process for handling issues. If we want to revive CSN, we'll probably need either an RFC or a thread on the Village Pump, to attract a wider consensus. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support community sanctions. As proposed by The Wordsmith (talk · contribs), with the note about location by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). A logical, rational, sensible, and reasonable proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions

It looks like we have some sort of consensus that sanctions on this specific article is a good idea. Where do we start? The sanctions must address two things:

1. The meatpuppetry and WP:SPA's.
2. The edit warring by long existing parties

Putting a blanket 1RR sanction would address #2, but not #1. I'm open to ideas. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to determine specifics for a few different parts of the proposed sanctions, so I have created a few subsections below. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added some initial thoughts at, um, sub-section #Some thoughts below. If anyone wants to move the sub-section somewhere more appropriate, please feel free to do so.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope

This proposal seems like it would cover Fox News Channel controversy and related articles, broadly construed. However, we might want to look at expanding it to all "Criticism of..." articles, which are nearly always problematic. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Making this a general rule for all "Criticism of" articles. At best they are "problematic" and at worst they become the WP cesspool of rumours, innuendo, BLP violations, and POV pushing. Collect (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How to enforce

The gist of discretionary sanctions is that any uninvolved admin can do whatever he needs to do to maintain the peace. As far as requesting enforcement, AN/ANI is one possibility, but that place handles enough issues already, and it might be better to have a place where people can respond to complaints while they already have knowledge of the specific sanction. Therefore, I propose reopening Wikipedia:Community sanctions noticeboard as a sort of community-run WP:AE board. I'm posting to the Village Pump to attract wider attention to this issue. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Community-placed discretionary sanctions is a great idea, and a great way to nip disputes in the bud before the parties get too entrenched. However, the purpose of them is to streamline the sanctioning process so it is probably wise to build in a few safeguards. Here are some initial thoughts based on a few messy ArbCom cases:

Define the area of conflict

Best to do this broadly and to include talk pages and any Wikipedia process related to articles within the area of conflict.

Topic bans

It's best if these explicitly include article talk pages as well as associated Wikipedia processes and their talk pages, widely construed. I know that some people believe that editors should have their say, come what may, but in reality posses of heavily involved editors turning up at AfD, admin talk pages, AN/I, AE etc really games and snarls up Wiki process and so it's best to try to keep them out of the equation.

Admin discretion

This means just that. It means that an uninvolved admin can and should act on their discretion, and of their own volition, without having to wait for community consensus or the outcome of a discussion.

Uninvolved admins

The enforcement has to be done by admins not only without a dog in the fight but also appearing to have a dog in the fight. Obviously, this means they're not part of the dispute but, less obviously, it means that they don't have a recent history of fraternising with or leaning on one side or the other. This needs spelling out as WP:INVOLVED is not concise enough and perhaps over-nuanced. Perhaps something along the following lines:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions, an administrator will be considered involved if they have recently or significantly: (i) participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) interacted personally with the editor, or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, or (iii) participated in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Sanctions

There are more options that straight blocks and bans so perhaps include some guidance to help admins to get creative. For example:
The sanctions imposed may include: blocks of up to one year in length; topic-bans applicable to any page or set of pages and their talk pages within the area of conflict; strict revert restrictions for edit-warring; interaction bans for feuding, baiting, and incivility; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Anyhow, that's my ²/₁₀₀,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to echo what Roger Davies has just said: with solid guidelines for the process such as those Roger has suggested, I believe that a community sanction regime, applied to an article or topic area when it becomes clear that there are recurrent problems, has the potential to be very effective in addressing these situations before the situation becomes so entrenched that little short of an Arbitration Committee case will resolve the problems. I think that timeliness of the application of community sanctions is important. If a situation has been going on for years, there may be much more limited success than if community sanctions are applied after only a few weeks or months of problematic editorial behaviour. The earlier that the battlefield mentality is deprecated, the more likely that less combative editors will return to improve the article in encyclopedic manner and repair any damage that may have taken place. Risker (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I support proposals taken to reduce edit warring and certainly prevent a repeat of the canvassing/meatpuppetry that took place over the recent RFC (no more RFCs and use of mediation instead seems like an easy solution to prevent or reduce what was basically vote rigging in the recent RFC). How the talkpage is managed though is always a rather delicate issue, what some view as "incivil" others have no problem with and think is perfectly within the rules. The focus should be on the article, not a witch hunt that takes place resulting in editors getting blocks or other sanctions applied for their comments that would be acceptable on other article talkpages but not Fox News related ones. Having such differences between articles on what is and is not allowed causes confusion and can lead to people being caught out accidentally because they think their comments are ok. Any sanctions agreed should certainly include a clear need to provide a warning to advise people their comments are unacceptable on the fox article, before any blocks are applied so they are not caught out by any change in the rules or how the rules are enforced in the area. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that I have begun drafting a proposal for standard community sanctions at User:The Wordsmith/Community sanctions. Input would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bump. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• In response, Wordsmith, I'm glad you have the idea of CS up, but I was looking for a more specific response for this situation (though I'm glad if we can create community sanctions for every article out there). The only viable response I've seen was proposed by EdJohnston on my talk page: indefinite full-protection, with all changes made via consensus on the talk page and the {{editprotected}} template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  EdJohnston is correct and my support goes to protection measures which are more useful to this situation at this point in time. The Community can already create Community sanctions when they actually become necessary, but some individuals are persistently trying to use this thread as a reason to re-manufacture that (when as you've said, it's not really what was being looking for in relation to this). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining the use and scope of "Incivility" (Terminology of the British Isles)

Can someone firstly tell where how and where the "best" place is to appeal, and have removed, the terms of a sanction?

Cheers. Secondly, I want to discuss a serious policy matter which related to this.

In the terms of the sanction place on me and Triton rocker is about a disputes over the Terminology of the British Isles. The admin Cailil has used the term "persistent incivility" and "assumptions of bad faith" for both of us. What he really means and is is banning us from is discussiing the national identity or nationalist POV of the other editors involved in this dispute - Not "incivility".

I am concern about this because the word or policy is being use to hide a different meaning.

The disputes about the terminology of the British Isles are definitely being influenced by nationalist interests - it has been going on for a long time. We need "good faith" but we also and to be realistic it. We need to be able to discuss it where it might effect content and editorsæ motivations. These sanctions are just a kind of censorship from doing so. Many of us have point out that the sanctions are completely onesided.

It is true to say that I strongly believe the motivations for the removal of the term British Isles from the Wikipedia by HighKing and other Irish editors are not logical or sincere and are nationalistically motivated. We need to be able to discuss this seriously without being blocked all the time. "Britain and Ireland", which is what they want to use, cannot be used to mean "British Isles" because the British Isles also include other islands with their own independent governments and identity.

They want to use Britain and Ireland to make Ireland equal I suppose - I accept that - but they are confusing two different uses of the terminology. It creates problems because it removes the same rights for the Isle of Man and Channel Island which are part of the British Isles and British history. They are not part of Britain and Ireland. We cannot list all 4 nations every time. "British" in British Isles is not the same as the "adjective form" Britain as in Great Britain.

The sanction was rapidly pushed through by Cailil, who is coincidentally also Irish, when both Triton rocker and I could not respond to it in anyway because we had been blocked see, sanction. Practically the only people commenting on it were those same editors we are talking about. It was also prejudiced by what was then an ongoing sockpuppet investigation Sockpuppet investigations LevenBoy which has since cleared me complete.

Because of this, I think the sanctions and the terms are wrong and unfair. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, TR's was completely correct; a complete inability to stay within the grounds of a sanction doubled with incivility to boot. LB, I will have a look at your case, but it's half midnight here now, so it may not be until tomorrow. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at TR's behaviour he was perfectly "civil" with others. He just had the wrong, perhaps too British, sense of humour.

You are talking about something else entirely which was "your indefinite ban" to stop him adding the term British Isles to any page. I think we should question it too. The sanction being applied is completely different and even more far reaching. It is an identical censorship to me. He was also blocked during Cailil pushing through his sanction and I think he should be allowed to join this discussion. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't this already undergo review on ANI? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(answering self) Yes, on Oct 3rd - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Inappropriate sanctions imposed on Triton Rocker and LevenB, filed by a SPA, review finding was that the sanctions were appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually GWH this went in front of ANi before that again for community approval in the first instance[70]. When that ANi thread closed with only LemonMonday (that same WP:SPA account who already had this reviewed on 3/10/10) objecting I imposed the community's decision. Also the sanction is for persistent incivility and persistent failure to assume good faith as stated and as defined in policy--Cailil ^talk 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For ease of reference the block and the civility parole discussion for LevenBoy was precipitated by this edit[71] which was preceded by a warning for this one [72] (warning issued by TFOWR[73]). That warning came days after LB had been blocked for incivility for these edit [74] and this one[75] made after users were asked not to comment on this page[76] (these offending edits were made after 4 earlier instances of disruption with 4 warnings - that particular issue is explained here[77])--Cailil ^talk 01:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• LevenBoy, some of your comments seem to be contributing to a battleground atmosphere (for example, "You are talking total bullshit and I've reverted your vandalism - and that is what it is. If you revert again I'll take it to AN/I." or " At the risk of being snipped, the raft of lame excuses given above for not changing to British Isles is plumbing new depths. It's all quite deplorable. In the past the so-called pro-BI editors have routinely been accused of stonewalling. Well we now know what real stonewalling is.") If you heeded the multiple warnings to avoid making inappropriate comments, and avoided such remarks, there would be no civility sanction imposed on you at this time; this is a collaborative project and your comments need to be in synch with that. When you're trying to make a point about a content issue, you can and should make the point without personalizing it or turning the area into a battlefield.
• In other words, it's not your content position which this sanction is asking you to consider changing; it's your conduct approach to this topic area which you need to consider changing. The restriction does not "muzzle" or "censor" you from contributing to the area; it restricts you to making comments that are within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policies (without letting you take detours). If you are unwilling/unable to conduct yourself in accordance with these, you will find yourself blocked, so an alternative would be to find an area where you will be willing/able: contribute to that area until such a time that you'll avoid making inappropriate remarks. However, if you can already conduct yourself appropriately and in accordance with the site's policies in this topic/area, and you wish to continue contributing to this topic/area, then demonstrate that in your contributions and you won't be in violation of your sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A number of the contributors here seem to be missing the point. That point is in regard to the sanctions, which were unilaterally imposed by the Cailil account without consensus. I have previously remarked on this. The indiscretions of LevenBoy are quite minor and there has been a total over-reaction to this matter. As LevenBoy points out, only those from what we can call the anti-BI camp were in favour of the sanctions. In fact, the sanctions appear to have been designed to silence opposition; what do we make of this from HighKing [78]? Given that Triton Rocker is blocked with no access to talk page, and LevenBoy has only just resumed editing after a significant break, how could HighKing claim the sanctions were successful if it was not that his consideration of success was the silencing of opposition. Tis whole issue of anti-BI POV goes on and on. Surely admins identifying, however indirectly, from one side of the debate, should not be issuing sanctions on those from the other side. LemonMonday Talk 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing the point, too. When this was initially brought to ANI an uninvolved admin, Mjroots (talk) commented:

Agree. Wikipedia is plenty big enough for troublesome editors to find outlets for their talent away from areas where it has been shown that their editing is problematic. The alternative is to completely exclude them from the project.

When this was last reviewed an uninvolved admin, DGG (talk) commented:

I am a little startled by Lemon Monday's statement above that "imposing a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. " -- when this apparently refers to imposing a high level of civility. Where higher levels are most needed is precisely for disputes like this--the more intractable the dispute, the greater need for a very high standard of polite behavior, because of the ease at which they can escalate. I certainly endorse Cahill's actions.

Another uninvolved admin, Georgewilliamherbert (talk), commented too:

Concur with the blocks and DGG's comment.

How many uninvolved admins need to concur with Cailil, Black Kite and myself before this matter is settled? LemonMonday, for that matter you've been told exactly what relevance Cailil's nationality has to this (i.e. none) on multiple occasions. After making your drive-by comments you disappear into the ether. The same happened when you asked for a diff of a civility issue - I provided one, but your thoughts on the matter were conspicuous by their absence. TFOWR 12:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think LemonMonday should be blocked for tag team edit-warring [79] and continuing this battleground mentality with his comment above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I just did that, and cited the very same reasons, tag-team edit warring and WP:BATTLE, plus WP:HEAR. [80] Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to ignore this issue but it troubles me. I am struggling to understand the definition of edit warring, anything seems to be possible to fall foul of the rule. I have received a warning and threatened with a block for edit warring on British Isles naming dispute. The time line (my clock is usually 1 hour wrong)..

• 19:45, 3 October 2010 - Highking removes templates with no debate. (removing templates)
• 20:15, 3 October 2010 Juhrere (now indef blocked) undoes Highkings edit. (restoring templates)
• 22:11, 3 October 2010 GoodDay undoes Juhrere's edit and tells him to take it to talk. (removing templates)
• 12:45, 4 October 2010 BritishWatcher - undoes GoodDays edit (restoring the templates)
• 16:47, 4 October 2010 HighKing - undoes BritishWatcher's edit (removing templates)
• 21:52, 4 October 2010 BritishWatcher - Adds a different template (more refs template)
• 15:34, 5 October 2010 BritishWatcher - Readds POV template and explains on the talk page one of the many problems (adds POV template)
• 15:57, 5 October 2010 HighKing - Undoes BritishWatcher's addition of POV template (removes POV template)
• 13:45, 8 October 2010 LemonMonday - Restores both templates

I do not believe anyones actions in the above warrant a block, not even Highking's, nobody even violated WP:1RR let alone WP:3RR. Now i understand that "Edit warring" does not always have to mean 3RR or 1RR is violated, but i do not see how the "exemption" is justified in this case. An instant 12 hour block for LemonMonday in part for "Tag team edit warring" simply for restoring tags that were removed without debate or consensus after a year, that sort of thing could apply to so many editors and reverts. My 2 edits were over 24 hours apart and were trying to restore the status quo, if it was in a WP:1RR area then i could understand it, but as far as im aware no such restrictions exist on that page. Will the next person on the naming dispute page that removes the templates be given a warning or blocked for tag team edit warring simply as others have acted previously? It hardly seems fair.

We may as well scrap 1RR an 3RR and simply say never revert anything because it can be classified as edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that the key part is "...in part for...". If you or HighKing had also been "...continuing this battleground mentality with [your/their] comment above..." or otherwise expressing a WP:BATTLE mentality or inability to WP:HEAR then it's entirely possible that you or HighKing would also have been blocked for 24 hours. There is also the fact that by the time anyone noticed the edit warring it was mostly several days stale, which Jehochman did explain to you and HighKing. In contrast, LemonMonday's edit warring was not stale. TFOWR 11:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I still do not see how 2 edits over a period of more than 24 hours is edit warring and deserving of a block, its not even a technical breach of WP:1RR, let alone WP:3RR and yet if it was spotted at the time by the admin apparently it would justify sanction. LemonMonday made one edit restoring a template that was removed several days before, i do not see how that justifies a block either. Will the next editor to remove those templates from the article be blocked because they too are "tag team edit warring" simply for removing a template someone else removed? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A key thing to understand BW is that reverting slowly but continuously over a long period of time is just as bad as breaking 3RR inside 24 hours. The reason we have policies about edit-warring or reverting in general is becuase the abuse of the revert function (or indeed edits that partially revert a previous edit) clogs up the history of an article. WP:3RR explains that editwarring need not be fast and furious but can also be slow - both are prohibited by policy. When we find slow edit wars they are taken seriously (as you can see). Also all of you really need to remind yourself that area is under probation--Cailil ^talk 14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring slowly over a long period of time with dozens of edits backwards and forwards just spaced enough not to violate WP:3RR is one thing which i accept is problematic, but just two edits over the use of a template separated by more than 24 hours and the second after comments on the talk page, in an area that has no 1RR and sanctions only apply to adding/removing BI seems extreme. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BW, you're still missing the point that LemonMonday wasn't blocked solely for edit warring. WP:BATTLE and WP:HEAR were also cited by Ncmvocalist and Jehochman, and I repeated that in my previous reply to you. TFOWR 14:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You could have been blocked, but nobody noticed at the time. Rather than place a punitive block on your account, which isn't allowed, I left you an admonishment not to edit war further. The basic pattern should be edit-revert-discuss, not edit-revert-revert-revert-revert. That sort of repeated reverting is hopeless because it doesn't lead to a stable outcome. I didn't see any intervening discussions of the edit, just a lot of slow-reverting, but if there were discussions please do leave the diffs and I'll update the record. The take away point is quite simple: don't participate in an edit war. This isn't a borderline case at all. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i made a number of comments on the talkpage after my original revert. These are the main ones, although there are a few others where i simply made minor alterations / corrections to other parts of my comments.

12:45, 4 October 2010 - (I undid Gooday's revert. Restoring the tags (POV and OR) removed by highking without debate after over a year) [81]

12:51, 4 October 2010 - (i create a new section on the talk page titled "tags") [82]

12:59, 4 October 2010 - (I mention another problem) [83]

13:00, 4 October 2010 - (I respond to James saying theres still a ton of citation tags in the article which is enough to be concerned about) [84]

13:01, 4 October 2010 - (i add to previous comment, no problem with tags being removed once some of the issues are dealt with) [85]

13:15, 4 October 2010 - (i respond to James and highlight a problem with one of the sources) [86]

14:08, 4 October 2010 - (Mentioned problems with a few more sources and another issue) [87]

16:47, 4 October 2010 (HighKing undoes my revert, removing the tags again) [88]

21:52, 4 October 2010 - (i add morerefs tag to article) [89]

22:06, 4 October 2010 (I reply to HighKing saying the article certainly has neutrality/accuracy issues) [90]

15:32, 5 October 2010 (I reply saying the intro is a problem for a start as it gives undue weight to random terms nobody ever uses which are put in the intro. I state i will be readding the neutrality tag. [91]

15:34, 5 October 2010 (I readd the POV tag) [92]

15:57, 5 October 2010 (Highking reverts my addition of POV tag) [93]

I just do not understand how my actions are "edit warring" that could justify a block. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at all these diffs yet, and don't think it is worth the time at this stage because the issue is moot; you weren't blocked and aren't going to be blocked over this incident. It's history. You seem to provide an explanation for your actions, and if in the future you continue to discuss while avoiding provocative reverts, there should be no problems. Even if you do discuss, repeatedly reverting is still edit warring. Discussion is a mitigating factor, not a license to edit war. If the other side behaves badly, don't join them; ask for help instead. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on what TFOWR wrote about BritishWatcher's timeline, I don't see one thing which I would expect to see, & which would prove that there is no battlefield mentality in this dispute: an attempt by any party involved to actually discuss the matter. Maybe there is one; BritishWatcher didn't provide any diffs or links for this Admin (who is so disinterested in the matter as to be almost uninterested) to investigate for himself. But, if a group of editors are simply reverting each other without discussion, then it doesn't matter if they are under a 3RR, a 1RR or a 0RR restriction. They are all edit warring & they all deserve sanctions. Either talk the matter over & figure out where you can agree on the matter, or find yourselves another hobby that doesn't involve editing Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing or rewording the sanction

I apologise at having to return to the first question again but it appears to have been buried in discussion.

• I would like to appeal the 'copy and paste' sanction [94] and have it removed or reworded to reflect the specific nature of it. It was not about "civility".— Preceding unsigned comment added by LevenBoy (talk • contribs)

Given this, do you really feel that now is a good time to be asking for the sanction to be removed or reworded? TFOWR 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rockers sanction

• In order to look at Triton Rockers sanction, I think he should be allowed to defend himself fairly by allowing him to edit his talk page. The sanctions were clearly hurried through. He was unable to defend himself. Afterwhich he seems to have been blocked while in the middle of doing so.[95]

Certainly all his recents edits have been civil despite all the provocations. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What provocations? GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• For example, the petty blocks, SarekOfVulcan edit warring with him over British Isles naming conventions pages [96] and all the general fun and games at WT:BISE. I cannot speak for him. I just think he should have been allowed to defend himself. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolute load of shit. His sanctions and his (in)ability to edit his talkpage occurred well after each other. He had plenty of time to make comments before finally losing access to his talkpage. LevenBoy, Your continued insistence otherwise is becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but "Absolute load of shit." is uncivil. Triton Rocker and I have been blocked for less than that. Here is the exact timeline. Allowing for a few hours here and there due to timezones, and the fact that not all editors live online 24/7, you will see I am correct. Neither of us could edit, neither of us were allowed to defend ourselves during Cailil accusation. Cailil accusation was heavily framed in a sockpuppet accusation which later prove to be false (unrelated).[97]

• In my case, I accept the sanction but I want the wording changed to be more accurate and specific. I was denied any input to that.
• In Triton's case, he should be allowed a chance to defend himself as the actual incidents he was banned for were exceptionally petty and he had not been being "incivil".

It looks to me as if the whole thing was railroaded through deliberately quickly whilst we could not edit. That may be coincidental but you still it without allowing either of us to comment --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling a WP:SPADE a spade is not uncivil, as it referred to the edits, and not the editor. TR was given full opportunity to defend himself more than once. Editors/admins copied/pasted his comments from his talkpage into the ANI thread as per standard practice. Defending one's self and continuing violations of WP:NPA during that so-called defence are two different things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

1) 10:11, 25 September 2010. Triton Rocker does not and cannot comment or defend himself at ANI because you had blocked him from doing so.

"Bwilkins - blocked Triton Rocker (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (violation of topic ban)"

2) 11:14, 25 September 2010 LessHeard changed block settings for LevenBoy with an expiry time of 2010-09-29 T 19:59:32 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)

3) 22:58, 26 September 2010. Cailil posts sanction here [98] Expansion of sanctions at WP:GS/BI

4) 03:27, 27 September 2010. Note Triton Rocker's comment that they are blocked from contributing from ANI and requests ANI is delayed until after prejudicial sockpuppet CU is done. [99] - (perfectly civil but ignored)

5) 12:57, 27 September 2010. Second request to wait until sockpupper CU is done and comments regarding censorship. [100]

6) 23:18, 30 September 2010. Cailil announces his decision [101]

7) 00:17, 1 October 2010. Tnxman307 announced results of sockpuppet CU, "These two accounts are pretty conclusively unrelated." - Tnxman307 [102]

8) 01:45 to 01:49, 1 October 2010. Triton arrives around (→Civility parole: Civility Parole or Kangaroo Court?) to make ANI comment noting that he is "still gagged", requests waiting until checkuser accusation is dealt for the third time and clarifies, "neither I, nor Levenboy, have made any request or statement yet. We are both blocked from doing so and I, personally, have not had the time to do so". [103]

"Your accusations are prejudicially framed with directly false and indirectly misleading accusations of sockpuppetry."

9) 02:04. Triton requests admin help to post comment, noting CU has closed. [104]

10) 02:59, 1 October 2010. SarekOfVulcan arrive blocks, reverts and locks user page again disallowing him to post at ANI. While Triton is in the middle of writing given the "work in progress" edit. [105]

"SarekOfVulcan - changed block settings for Triton Rocker with an expiry time of 2010-10-25 10:11:11 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)"

11) 03:04, 1 October 2010. SarekOfVulcan makes up excuses that "calling an archived thread on WP:AN/I an "ongoing discussion" or blanking his talk page was a crime when it is not and reverts.[106]

It is clear that Triton did not know that the ANI had been closed as he logged on at the same time, finding out the checkuser had also closed in his favour. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it astounding that all these sanctions were being applied when the two accused couldn't even edit their own talk pages. LevenBoy's talk page editing was removed for a highly dubious reason, as was Triton's for that matter. Anyone from outise Wikipedia looking at what's gone on here would be dumbfounded! LemonMonday Talk 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the main point

I want to return to the main point again.

This sanction was hurriedly pushed through while neither I nor Triton Rocker could defend ourselves. Yes, it was brought up again but, again, hurriedly closed while neither I nor Triton Rocker could comment or defend ourselves. Triton Rocker is still not allowed to defend himself because his talk page is still conveniently blocked. [107] The point I want to make is, this sanction is essentially dishonest in its wording. It is not about "incivility" meaning "bad words". In my case, it was not even about my irrelevant history. Cailil's sanctions are not about bad language or rudeness. It creates a false and prejudicial impression to new contributors to the dispute. The intention is to stop individuals from rationally discussing the issue of editors involved in the British Isles naming dispute being nationalistically motivated, and possibly even irrationally so. Specifically questioning the motivation of the Irish editors involved.

If you look at Triton Rocker's history, I can see no relevent history of "incivility". I think he was an example of civility even while being accused of being me, reverted or attacked by the usual gang surrounding these topics. See: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114] (taken at random).

What are "incivil" about these? Nothing. Therefore it is not about "incivility".

Like I said, the accusations were framed in an then ongoing sockpuppet accusation which has since cleared as "pretty conclusively Unrelated." [115] This I believe was deeply prejudicial. Basically, no one else cared about it except the Irish tag team involved in the dispute.

I am raising this is because it sets a dangerous precedent in any nationalist conflict area or naming dispute where an admin who themselves associate with one side or another can swoop in and throw around blocks at the other side. Of course, I want the wording taken off or sanction changed, and I think Triton Rocker should be allowed to defend himself.

Neither of us was making false or harsh accusations. No one was calling anyone else a "Nazi". The others editors literally state their nationalistic or republican sympathies clearly on their talk pages, or would admit to it. No one was being outing.

It is highly relevent to ongoing discussions that we are allowed to discuss this. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Premature Poll Closure

I apologise but I have to raise the issue of the admin TFOWR prematurely closing a poll I set as consensus building and unilaterally forbidding it to complete, despite being supported by others. [116].

We need to clarify matters on the British Isles naming dispute. We need to see where individuals stand and resolve the contradictions. It may even be that we have to encourage certain user to educate themselves what the legal reality of the 4 states are. I asked TFOWR politely to allow me to ask three simple questions which would help us do so.

• Is Britain and Ireland is an invalid equivalent for British Isles. (speaking legally or technically) - the answer is no because Britain and Ireland does not include the Isle of Man & Channel Islands whereas British Isles does.
• Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? - the answer is also no because Isle of Man & Channel Islands are neither part of Britain nor Ireland.

And, thirdly, I want to ask

• What do we do when references, which might be subjective opinion, outdated, propagandic or even erroneous, contradict that reality?

The reason for these questions is that the Irish activists on the Wikipedia, lead by HighKing, have been persistently attempting to replace "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" which is incorrect because it excludes the Isle of Man & Channel Islands.

I feel TFOWR is becoming provocative by twisting my words suggesting that I want to "poll reality" or by changing the argument, that it is "beyond the scope of the project" to decide national borders, when those borders have already been decided nationally and legally.

Amazing, he claims "Contributors' knowledge of constitutional law is of no relevance here" when, surely, that is precisely what we need to accept in such a dispute to get it right. While accusing me of disruption I think he is actually causing more disruption and blocking consenus building. I have stated clearly that I think he is acting beyond his authority here. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The question on Britain and Ireland / UK and Ireland are valid ones although it may have been better to deal with that at the main terminology page, rather than BISE. "Britain and Ireland" is claimed to be the main alternative to the British Isles, at present British Isles does mislead people about the status of "Britain and Ireland", which is not an archipelago in north west europe. TFOWR did nothing wrong by closing one of your polls, infact closing the poll on if they are part of the UK / Ireland highlights its commonsense they are not part of those places. There for there is a problem with "Britain and Ireland" being an alternative name for the archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The more disruptive certain editors become, the more closer those editors move towards a ban - for however long it takes for the actual message (not the foolishly fabricated excuses that this is about a pro or anti POV of some sort or that this is about overreaching authority of some sort) to sink in. I'm not sure how many other ways that Cailil, TFOWR, Jehochman, Georgewilliamherbert, llywrch, DGG, Mjroots, or any other user for that matter can make it clear that this area is under probation and disruption should (and will) be met with sanctions. With the continued soapboxing and battleground mentality exhibited by Levenboy, particularly in the section above this one, there will be no option but for a topic ban to be imposed if there isn't a drastic change soon. Note: I've also changed the title of this section to something more neutral. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• LevenBoy set up two polls: one asks under what circumstances, if any, "Britain and Ireland" is an accpetable alternative for the term "British Isles". I have not close this poll, as it is a valid question to ask. The second poll asked whether the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I have closed this second poll because it is not within our power as Wikipedia editors to decide this - the constitutional status of these islands is well known, not disputed, and I felt the poll was pointless. Indeed, I felt that the purpose of the poll was to justify an edit like this one - a cheap attempt to make a WP:POINT. Regarding LevenBoy's amazement at my "Contributors' knowledge of constitutional law is of no relevance here" point - I have told LevenBoy and other editors at WT:BISE time and time again that what matters is policy and precedent, not contributors knowledge of arcane British constitutional law, or other expert topics. This should come as no surprise to most Wikipedians: this project was set up in such a way that non-experts could participate; indeed, so that non-experts could take a primary role. Expert knowledge has never been required: what's required is the ability to read, discuss, and collaborate. I do not believe that contributors' knowledge of British constitutional law is relevant at WT:BISE, and I believe if LevenBoy wants to ask other contributors about their knowledge of such law it is best done on LevenBoy's talkpage. TFOWR 17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is a straw man argument. We are not talking about "constitutional law". There is no need of any knowledge of constitutional law. We are talking about simple, commonly known geography as presented in any number of reliable sources.

The purpose of the polls is to build consensus on the basis of our mutual knownledge of that commonly known and agreed geography, identify the contradictions and resolve them. It is very simple. The problem is if we have individuals who strongly believe something is right which is wrong, who want something to be in the future that is not in the present, we have to identify that, inform them using the reliable references and resolve the matters with them.

Why would TFOWR block that from happening and, by digging his heels in forbidding it, cause disruption by doing so? The poll was going ahead perfectly peacefully and was well accepted. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just sayin'... TFOWR 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant reference. TFOWR, you're the one rolling out the straw man argument, not me. It's just simple geography the stateman decided a long time ago. The bottomline is, a consensual mandate is an important content and community building tool. Forbidding the poll caused far more disruption than allowing it to run its course. It was counterproductive. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The only disruption came from you, LevenBoy - I closed the poll as it had run its course - it was a WP:SNOW close of a pointless poll that was outside WT:BISE's remit anyway. My only regret is that I didn't close it as soon as it opened. My reference was relevant was because it showed you asking How on earth can you say knowledge of constitutional matters are of no relevance when we are discussing and deciding matter of Statehoods? Yet above you claim We are not talking about "constitutional law". There is no need of any knowledge of constitutional law. The diff speaks to your honesty. Which I believe is very relevant in a thread you started about my conduct. TFOWR 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The poll had not "run its course". The poll had hardly even started. It was open for less than a day. The purpose was to clearly see what everyone thought, and their level of thought, and to build a clear mandate for consensus. As I have had to caution you, you do not speak for others.

I think it was a situation where you should "Assumed Good Faith" in the first place and consulted others. There was nothing uncivil or disruptive in the questions. They are entirely pertinent and logical. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've covered this already at WT:BISE, but I'd prefer to keep things here. Was there any likelihood whatsoever that (a) anyone was going to say that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are part of either the UK or the Republic of Ireland? and (b) that, even if they had, it would make the slightest difference to reality? It was, and remains, my belief that the purpose of the poll was purely WP:POINTy - you wanted to contrast the two polls in order to try and suggest that "Britain and Ireland" can't be equivalent - ever - to "the British Isles". But "Britain and Ireland" is used by some sources in that context, i.e. to mean "the British Isles" and not (Great) Britain and Ireland. It was unsubtle, pointy, disruptive - and factually wrong. You disagree with the government of Ireland using the term "Britain and Ireland" to mean "British Isles" - take it up with them. You're not going to solve that at Wikipedia. Your continuing refusal to understand that is disruptive. Your causal insults directed at other editors is a breach of your civility parole. TFOWR 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just on the issue of the "Britain and Ireland". No reliable sources have been provided showing that Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west Europe the rest of us know as the British Isles. All ive seen is Britain and Ireland is preferred by some rather than mentioning the British Isles. The first poll was an important issue although it should have been done at British Isles naming dispute, British Isles , British Isles terminology or the main taskforce page rather than BISE. Second poll that you closed on if its part of the UK was not needed though as its obvious to all it is not part of the UK. But i do find the split in response to the first poll very interesting, although i guess it comes down to how one defines "equivalent" which itself has different meanings. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see individuals state simply that "Britain and Ireland is the same as British Isles". Obviously it is not and needs the various qualifications that others offered. It would have been useful to see how editors who did say that Britain and Ireland equals British Isles viewed the IoM and CI.

If we are honest here, the historical problem that has caused the naming dispute is Engligh chauvanism over the Irish. I accept that. If we are honest, the Wikipedia naming dispute was about primarily Irish editors trying attempting to replace every incident of British Isles with "Britain and Ireland". I understand the Irish's feelings.

The problem is, we cannot resolve Engligh chauvanism over the Irish with British and Irish chauvanism over the Manx (Isle of Man) or Channel Islanders who have their own indepedent histories and cultures. If we are to bring to re-position "Ireland" then equally we have to re-position the Isle of Man or Channel Island. But we cannot stylistically because it would be silly (too long) and unmatched in academia.

We are ultimately working towards a MoS on the matter. Polls are useful for building consensus. I was working through this clearly and logically giving everyone a change to voice their opinions. It was not disruptive. 4 individuals had already accepted and voted with any issues.

• I would like an agreement to allow the polls to run without unilaterial disruption from one editor speaking on behalf of others. I can accept they are run on another taskforce page but not my user page. That was little more than an insult. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for my consent to run an off-topic poll on whether the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of France, or the Most Serene Republic of San Marino then no. I can tolerate your surprise; I can't tolerate your disruption. TFOWR 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The poll is over now, there is no need for another or a rerun of it. Although carrying on with the debate at British Isles naming dispute about how these issues there should be covered and how the introduction should be worded is probably the best way forward. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Run the polls at BISE's main-page. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. For some strange reason LevenBoy would apparently prefer not to do that, however. TFOWR 20:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's word I think this discussion is more of a soapbox. I honestly don't know were you get the patiences for this TFOW. Bjmullan (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well past time for at least a 1 month vacation for LevenBoy. Nothing but BS and WP:SOAP, which as noted above, is well past disruption. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, TFOWR, but I must pick you up on that again. You dont speak for me or anyone else at WT:BISE. That is a false representation of my position. I am happy to put them in the "right" place but your suggestion put them on my talk page was an insult. Fact, the WT:BISE pages are a sprawl mess full of stuff that needs sorted out. Nothing is clear. There is one active page discussion page. I put them there for obvious reasons. That is where we meet and talk. For whatever reason, you have attempted to quickly derail them as you have derailed other conversations. You did not assume good faith or even asking my intentions first. The polls were supported and appreciated by others. There was no conflict over them.

• I think that is an admin overstepping their authority and I'd like to ask TFOWR is sanctioned for doing so please (not to presenting himself as talking for others and not to disrupt GF polls). --LevenBoy (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The BISE page is a mess and it's very annoying the way sections disappear due to archiving. The true motive of BISE seems just to be to satisfy various POV arguments. It must be unique in Wikipedia and as far as I can see it detracts from the true purpose of the project. It seems also that TWOFR is maybe not assessing consensus correctly and I question some of the decisions he makes. Is TWOFR the final arbiter on these matters? LemonMonday Talk 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE is a talkpage, like any other on Wikipedia. The one possible deviation from Wikipedia norms is that the first two sections are "stickies" - the first one reminds editors about WP:CIVIL, contains a pointer to the archives and also provides a general guideline about "fauna" (real fauna, not Wikipedia editors...) If you can suggest a way to make the pointer to the archives more noticeable I'm certainly open to suggestions. But your suggestion that "sections disappear due to archiving" is way off base. Discussions stop, I mark them as resolved, they're left for a couple of days, then they're moved to the archives. Which are advertised at the top of the page. If you needed help discovering this, you could either have read the page or asked. TFOWR 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please, LevenBoy. Where do I "speak for [you] or anyone else at WT:BISE"? Where have I "derailed other conversations"? TFOWR 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider LevenBoy's comment, above, to be a breach of their civility parole. I have requested diffs both here and on their talkpage. TFOWR 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's an excellent reason why he shouldn't be under civility patrol. I see nothing uncivil at all. Frank views, yes, but he's not badmouthing anyone. Editors should not be blocked for having an opposing view, but it seems to happen all too often (including to me) in this arena. LemonMonday Talk 18:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the previous block has had little effect on you; at the rate at which you and LevenBoy are going, another is likely to be imposed. Please stop this troublesome behavior. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct because it was totally unjustified. This is not participating in a battle, it is expressing an opinion. Pleas don't take this personally but it seems like you and others are hunting around for reasons to block editors opposed the the anti-BI POV (and I acknowledge there's also a pro-BI POV). Your threatening remarks add nothing to this debate. LemonMonday Talk 18:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That very comment is a sign of the same conduct that you were blocked for (bad faith comments that reinforced a battleground mentality, and it appears that no amount of explaining is going to help you understand while you continue with IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Calling on an administrator to either enforce probation or take action under our site policies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility parole. Nobody is patrolling anywhere. It's "be nice from now on, or else" as opposed to "I'm watching you very closely for being bad". Perhaps the difference in words will help you to understand that you're off blowing in the wind in the wrong direction here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy has offered this up by way of a diff for the claims made above. I take the view that it in no way supports LevenBoy's claim, and I intend to block LevenBoy for breaching their civility parole. If they're able to provide diffs which support their above claims, I am, of course, open to their block being lifted. TFOWR 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Part struck: Cailil has already blocked LevenBoy for same. TFOWR 18:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton and Leven civility parole

can some one please explain since I genuinely don't understand this: what can I say that Triton and Leven can't? In other words, we're all supposed to be civil, so give me an example of something I might say that won't result in a block but if Triton or Leven said it, would. It seems to me that the whole notion of placing users on civility patrol is plain daft.

The comments above from users such as Wilkins strongly suggest a desire to block users for no good reason. There is incivility in a great deal of the comments above. LemonMonday Talk 16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Already answered on my talkpage. TFOWR 17:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

...and I replied on mine, even though someone apparently has never read WP:CIVIL. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I just can't be doing with all these policies. Most of them are just opinion pieces anyway. We don't need a policy to tell us that your remarks are uncivil. LemonMonday Talk 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be a shame to let policy (not opinion piece) interfere with increasing WP:DRAMA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

LevenBoy has been blocked for 1 month for persistent failure to assume good faith in breach of his editing restriction, for disrupting the project to make a point here and at WP:BISE, and for continuing to behave with a battleground mentalty--Cailil ^talk 18:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, LemonMonday has been warned for failing to assume good faith and displaying a battleground mentality. They have also been reminded not to "ask the other parent" in regard to the issue of TritonRocker's sanction again--Cailil ^talk 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate measures. Noting that LevenBoy requested unblocks; declined ([117] [118]). Ncmvocalist (talk)

Doncram/Blueboar

Since Doncram (talk · contribs) and Blueboar (talk · contribs) don't seem to be able to edit collegially at this point, as shown in the recent history of Sons of Haiti, Grand Lodge of Idaho, and their associated AfDs, I've blocked both of them for 48 hours. In the meantime, I'd like input as to whether this is sufficient, or whether some form of interaction ban might be required when they return. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I myself am one of those stupid eternal optimists who despite all the evidence think that giving people one last chance, with those involved knowing that it is their one last chance, is generally the best way to go. Having said that, if at some point after the blocks expire, either one or both return to the behavior in question, there's no reason not to place down a ban of the kind you describe. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've just stepped through today's history for Sons of Haiti, and it was interesting. The edit summaries look suspicious, but when you look at the diffs, it looks like Blueboar isn't actually reverting -- even when the edit summary indicates that he is.

  See how the article changes when you look at Blueboar-to-himself edits: [119][120][121][122][123] NB that there are substantive changes each time that are relevant to his fellow editors' complaints. His "reversions" never go back to the same version.

  Now compare that to what his fellow editors are doing: [124][125][126] (but see [127])[128] -- with the exception of a couple of spelling fixes, all of them basically wholesale reversions to their preferred version, with no effort to change or compromise. The Marksv88/Doncram "tag team" has been highly effective at preventing net changes for the last 18 hours.[129]

  In short, I think that we may be punishing Blueboar for actually following the recommended procedure at Wikipedia:Consensus#Process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • That's possible, and if so, he has my apologies. It's not just that article, though -- it's the talk pages and the AfDs, and the various other pages they've bumped heads on over the past month or so. I was trying to be fair by applying the sanction equally, as I thought both of them were at fault, but if one of them was being baited into disruption, that's a different situation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• This is a shame. I had been trying to come up with something to suggest at User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Yet another conflict with Doncram. Now neither editor can continue their participation in that discussion. I can understand the viewpoints of both editors, here. But this is a long-standing situation that doesn't admit of a simple single-article mediation solution; and it's hard to see what third parties can do to alleviate the problem. Resolving this is not easy. I suspect that revoking editing privileges isn't going to achieve very much overall. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It'll gain time for uninvolved parties to evaluate the situation without it continuing to spiral out of control -- that's why I brought it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• tbh I think you're a bit too close to this whole issue yourself at the moment and I think this response was disproportionate with respect to both users. I think both could do with walking away from the various articles for a while although that's unlikely to happen. I'm not convinced that any sanction would have any beneficial effect on content though, or could be defined reasonably enough that it could/ would be complied with by both.

ALR (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was really hoping for a little more input here before the blocks expired -- anyone else?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on Doncram, but I've found Blueboar to be a valuable editor. WhatamIdoiing's comments concern me. I also agree with ALR's comments. This isn't an easy call and I wish I could be more constructive. There are times when bumping heads with someone is almost unavoidable if there are policy/guideline issues involved (not saying that this is the case here, just that it's unavoidable at times). Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked Blueboar. On neither of the pages mentioned (Sons of Haiti and Grand Lodge of Idaho) did he actually breach 3RR, whilst "and elsewhere" is uselessly vague. There is nothing here to justify the strong block log entry "disruptive editing"; on the contrary, he seems to have been editing constructively. Furthermore, Sarek, you've very recently edited Sons of Haiti on one of the issues Blueboar was discussing, to a degree which may not rise to WP:INVOLVED but is still less than ideal. It may even be that your attempt to be "evenhanded" here was motivated in part by that involvement. I'm less clear about Doncram, but equally, I see nothing to justify the block log entry, so I've unblocked him too. If there are wider behavioural issues, they need to be handled more systematically, eg by an WP:RFC/U. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank Rd232 for unblocking. Sarek, please do contact me and explain what you found disruptive in my behavior... From my perspective, I honestly was trying to follow procedure and do the right thing ... but, obviously you didn't see it that way. I would like to better understand what you found disruptive so that I can avoid such behavior in the future.

As to the larger issue of the ongoing conflict between Doncram and myself... I really don't know how to resolve it. It seems that whenever we cross paths, we end up butting heads. It has gotten to the point where good faith is very hard to assume... for either of us. I suspect that Sarek is correct that this will take some sort of admin action to resolve, but I don't know what it is. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also to Rd232 for unblocking. I was preparing an unblock request actually and have posted draft/notes from that in the block section at User talk:Doncram#October 2010. (As a reference link, the corresponding block section for Blueboar is the October 2010 section within this version of Blueboar's Talk], which he just blanked.) I would be interested if another editor or two would collaborate in preparing an RFC/U for further discussion. I have not before opened an RFC/U but would be willing to start that, if it's not required to be done on a rush basis and if one or two other editors would assist. IMO, there are fundamental problematic behaviors going on, and an RFC/U on Blueboar's name is most natural. As part of such an RFC/U, I fully understand that my own interactions with Blueboar would be under scrutiny as well. If another editor wished to start an RFC/U without my involvement in any drafting, that would also be fine by me. --doncram (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with an RFC/U on me... if this would resolve the conflict. Is it possible to have an joint RFC/U on both of us at the same time? If not, then I would suggest one on each of us. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC) - PS... I too have never done an RFC/U and so would need assistance in setting one up. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an update... Doncram and I have agreed to formal mediation, with User:RobertMfromLI as mediator... hopefully this will result in better interaction between us. I thank you all for your comments and advice here and on my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

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:

• A specially-tailored version ofdiscretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletionof them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey[130]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen[131]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Price check on aisle 5

Because I'm feeling a bit badly about it, and for my peace of mind, would someone please check my discussion with an editor, here and here, to see if I'm correct in what I've said and if there's any other suggestions that can be made to this person? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check executed. No insanity detected. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki unblock request

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.

Resolved

 – After reviewing this long discussion, there is not widespread support to change the status quo regarding Protector of Wiki's current block status. It is by no means unanimous, but there is enough opposition to unblocking to make it clear that it isn't going to happen at this time --Jayron32 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Protector of Wiki requests unblocking at their talk page. Any more thoughts about this are welcomed here. HeyMid (contributions) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that UncleDouggie or Sonia should be the editors raising this here, and that you, Heymid, shouldn't be editing Protector of Wiki's talkpage at all... TFOWR 10:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; Heymid, you've been told multiple times by several editors not to get involved in this. sonia♫ 09:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that Protector of Wiki be unblocked. I believe that we have gotten past the battleground issue. Protector of Wiki has been a good content contributor and their interactions with other editors should continue to improve with more experience. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I cannot support this unblock request. Speaking as someone who observed the original problem but remained out of the discussion for the most part, I still don't believe the user understands. If he "will hold (himself) to the standard of Malleus Fatuorum", then with all due respect from MF, that's not an editor we should be giving another chance to. Also, I see nothing from him about agreeing not to USE ALL CAPS. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Protector of Wiki has promised to not use all caps. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess you mean "with all due respect to MF" Strange Passerby, because perhaps unsurprisingly there's very little respect for the view that you and others here are expressing about my allegedly unacceptably poor behaviour from me. It seems that there are some familiar faces here who have seized on a Heaven-sent opportunity to get their cudgels out again; I'd encourage them to remember that this is about PoW, not about me. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• This is just a thought, but might it be a good idea for PoW to be encouraged--not required--to CHU to a new username? The current username seems to feed into the (now apparently resolved, hurrah) battleground mentality. Not commenting on the unblock request as unfamiliar with the precise details. → ROUX ₪ 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • To clarify: I'm thinking, if PoW is unblocked, that a new username might give a fresh start and help to keep the former battleground mentality at bay. → ROUX ₪ 11:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with Roux on changing usernames, whether at WP:Changing username or under WP:CLEANSTART (the latter as long as at least one admin with knowledge of the situation is told of the new name). It would help. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

      I've just typed "Protector of Wiki" four times. I can certainly support this proposal! ;-) I 'spose I could abbreviate it, but "PoW" and "POW" just don't seem right... TFOWR 14:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Suport unblock. Support we drop the comments about Malleus (from all sides) though I note Beeblebrox was at least gracious enough to notify Malleus that he was been mentioned. Not fussed about the username TBH. Pedro :  Chat  11:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on ANI like most unblock discussions that veer off of the user's talkpage? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion, but the talk page discussion suggested this page. However, I don't understand why this discussion should be brought here. Maybe because some admins have been involved with PoW? HeyMid (contributions) 13:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki was blocked following a community discussion. Any unblock should come after a similar discussion. It's not as simple as a regular block/unblock because there was community consensus that Protector of Wiki should be blocked, so there needs to be consensus that Protector of Wiki be unblocked. TFOWR 14:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That was not my question. However, I was wondering whether this is the right place for this sort of discussion or not. HeyMid (contributions) 14:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the place such discussion take place. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Shouldn't this be on ANI" <-- no, because it is not an 'incident' per se. –xeno^talk 15:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with unblocking. I still have yet to see him actually understanding why he was blocked, rather, complying with others' requests to not use all caps, etc. solely to get unblocked. There's just something that people should notice: there has been countless hours in trying to get this one editor unblocked, which is, IMO, not a net positive. Time that could have been spent in more constructive areas. (X! · talk)  · @546  ·  12:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  On your second point, since when is having volunteer editors help a relatively new user a reason to keep that user blocked? It shouldn't enter into the picture. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblocking PoW has made it clear that although he disagrees with the issues, he will abide with the community decision. He also knows that if he transgresses, he will be indef blocked with little-to-no change of another chance. The non-battling edits were good, so I am happy to give him the chance to contribute again - and willing to indef block at the first sign of trouble -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Having been the one who blocked him originally, I don't expect my opinion to carry much weight; but I'm just not convinced here. Having reviewed the edits PoW made to his talk page since being unblocked, it struck me like he was just continuing the game he started; the refusal to comply would ultimately result in the talk page being blocked again, so he stopped. I also sort of agree with X!; the first bit anyway. But if this appeal is successful, I hope I am proven wrong. I'm generally a big supporter of AGF but I have my doubts here. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Question: UncleDouggie, Sonia: you've been mentoring Protector of Wiki. If Protector of Wiki were to be unblocked, would that mentoring continue? TFOWR 14:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why we're having this discussion, but I can't support an unblock at this time. Having seen what's gone on at his talk page, it still feels like he's just playing games with us. He's indef blocked for pointy and battleground behavior, and I can't see that's changed. Saying things like "I'll be as civil as Malleus" or "I reserve the right to ignore the rules," and his several-day long "admin (there, are you happy)" tear makes me think he's still just here to mess with people, and walk the edge of productivity to enable him to disrupt. Dayewalker (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR: My mentoring will continue. I can't be there 24 hours a day, so Protector of Wiki will still need to be very careful given the likely short leash. The ideal case would be for any minor deviation to result in a one week block to give Sonia and I a chance at some dialog. Anything serious would of course be an indef block. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker: There are more efficient ways to disrupt that don't require good content contributions and lots of reading on our notability policies. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Vandals are quickly blocked and reverted, no damage done. Some of the worst damage I've seen here comes from editors who understand the system, but either use it to subtly disrupt productive editors, or who simply refuse to "get" some of our policies such as civility and consensus. To put it simply, my least kind of editor is the one who comes here to disrupt while still playing within the rules. I have no idea why anyone would waste their time doing that, but they do it all the time. Dayewalker (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that it may be you who has failed to "get" some of these policies, rather than PoW? Is it one of your own policies to get rid of anyone and everyone you consider to have been uncivil, regardlesss of their contributions to this project? The question is of course rhetorical, as the answer is very plain to see. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've considered it. Nope. Dayewalker (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblocking per PhantomSteve above. HeyMid (contributions) 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose His comments like (there are you happy) and such indicate he has not understood how he needs to act here to be successful and productive. He is still playing games with everyone on that page. Watching the discussion there it was clear he was messing with his "mentors" and has no real intention of improving. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  It's possible, but I prefer to assume good faith until proven otherwise. I just hope that Protector of Wiki can do the same given some of the comments to the contrary on this page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now (partly per Dayewalker); I've had the user's talk page on my watchlist since the original event, and so far I have seen little or no indication that they've actually taken any of the advice to heart. In particular, the fact that when they eventually stopped using the term "mod" for admins, after being told why it was a problem (i.e. the fact that they were being pointy about its usage), they began instead using "admin (there, you happy now?)" with every use. To me, that indicates that they've still completely missed the point. The user still seems to feel that the community are unjustly stopping them doing as they please, and that humouring us short-term will let them continue long-term; I'm not satisfied that they understand that the community aren't here to force them into compliance, we're here because we are real people with real concerns about the fact that POW seemed intent on deliberately going against what the community, i.e. fellow editors, have agreed is acceptable practice. I would support unblocking if the user stops acting as though we are oppressing them and starts to appreciate that we're a community of editors, not dictators (or indeed, "moderators"), and that the complaints which led to the block aren't whims: they are the result of disruption caused to wikipedia, as determined by its members. I'm open to any evidence which shows that PoW really is "getting it" now, but what I've seen on their talk page has yet to convince me. Note that while the unblock request seems to give the "right answers", it's not really PoW's words, it was copied straight from what UncleDouggie suggested PoW say in order to be unblocked: we're not really looking for words, we're looking for understanding. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  If I knew that I'd be accused of writing the unblock request, I assure you I would have taken Malleus Fatuorum out of my non-existent draft. I don't mean any disrespect to Malleus Fatuorum here, but he is a legend in more ways than one and I kind of expected this would happen. Protector of Wiki latched onto him as an example of a survivor and I knew there was no point in suggesting that the reference be removed. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support this "protection". –BuickCenturyDriver 15:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? I am not a native English speaker, so I am unable to understand that post. HeyMid (contributions) 15:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Could you explain what you mean by "protection"? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • @Heymid: I am a native English speaker, but I don't understand it either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd guess it's a play-on-words off the blockee's username. –xeno^talk 15:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • It is. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Go ahead an unblock and have him on probation we can always block him at the first sign of trouble The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Only chance The first breach of the conditions of this unblock (not using caps, not being aggressive, submitting to mentorship, whatever else has been decided) means an indef. Hopefully, this is not a charade. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, but if an additional chance IS given, I support both the mandatory name change and the "only chance" proposals above. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I am willing to give Protector of Wiki another chance. Blocks are issued to prevent disruption. He has agreed to stop doing the actions that caused the block. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't seem interested in building an encyclopedia. User's disruptive behavior will probably resume following unblock. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose After reviewing the "drafts" of this unblock request, it is clear that the editor's behaviour is not changing, they are merely telling us what we want to hear. In fact, his unblock was drafted by someone else. Although I'm not looking for supplication, an actual and honest understanding of their actions and why they are wrong is vital. The mentality of "working together" does not exist. Suggest the standard offer for the editor to gain a level of maturity and understanding about community that they do not yet currently entertain. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dayewalker, Giftiger wunsch, and BWilkins. The "there, are you happy?" nonsense he was pulling on his talk page shows he's still hoping to just needle people. I agree with BWilkins' belief that he is "merely telling us what we want to hear" in order to get unblocked. Too much of a battleground mentality to function in a collaborative environment. either way (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this isn't a playground for immature people who want to yank other people's chains. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Evidence of having learned to play well with others is not convincing. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Standard offer: The user can go work on another Wikimedia project for six months to demonstrate his ability to edit constructively in a community, and then come back with that evidence to support his unblock request.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the good people over at Simple Wikipedia will appreciate your suggestion - oh, wait, he's blocked from there. Maybe he can go edit commons, .es, .de, .fr or meta perhaps? Your bordering on surreal effective "dump him onto another wiki to see how he gets on" oppose is staggering in its lack of research, lack of thought, lack of vision and, frankly, lack of clue. Dear me. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The proposal doesn't dump him on other Wikis - he can go to them regardless of what we do here. Since he was blocked on Simple that's a bridge he's burned, but there are others. One of the key reasons for the "standard offer" (which Durova formulated or at least used often) is that if you tell someone they can never edit here again then they have no incentive to avoid disruptive sock-puppetry. OTOH, if you hold out the offer of unblocking based on good behavior then they might actually change. If they don't then nothing is lost.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro, I don't mind the suggestion to "go elsewhere and prove you're worthwhile instead of a knob" concept. It's not dumping them on anyone, it's a) to show we're not the only one's who don't put up with crap, and b) a good way to learn how to act collegially (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock per Black Kite. --John (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock, as per common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Question to MF Two questions really; did you change your mind about this since this? And, could you possibly enlarge on your rationale? "Common sense" can mean very different things to different people and as a result doesn't really mean anything. Thanks. --John (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You just can't let go. No, I haven't changed my mind, and I'm not going to enter into a discussion with you or with anyone else. I'm merely stating my opinion, after having expressed my unhappiness about being dragged into a discussion that has nothing to do with me. Are you OK with that? Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Not sure what the first part of the answer means, but it's ok. I am totally fine with you stating your opinion without giving a rationale. --John (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. The worst that could possibly happen is that the user acts uncivilly again and costs a few admins a small amount of time in blocking him/her again. The best that happens is that PoW contributes productively as xe has done in the past. Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying I think the problem is solved. But I don't think there's anything PoW can do or say on his/her talk page to convince us of sincerity, and that only his/her actions can prove that, and I don't think s/he can do any serious harm to the encyclopedia with one (again, really, one) last chance. It will become rapidly obvious whether PoW has internalized the message or only given it lip service, and, if the latter, will certainly have no recourse other than that found in WP:OFFER. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support- This user has agreed to stop being a pest, and to be honest I didn't see his actions prior to being blocked as all that disruptive anyway. If people oppose unblock requests on the vague rationale of "oh, he's only saying that to get unblocked" then under that circumstances can anyone ever get unblocked? Reyk _YO! 02:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not that there's anything wrong with supporting the unblock on the basis you state, but there really is a difference between asking for an unblock in a way that shows an effort, on the one hand, and on the other asking in a way that communicates that one is performing what one believes to be the absolute minimum necessary compliance, and that extremely grudgingly and with barely-restrained contempt for those one is interacting with. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  I've read through the lengthy discussions on PoW's talk page and I cannot see where PoW has behaved contemptuously towards anyone. There is certainly nothing at all wrong with his second unblock request; it addresses the reasons for his block and stats that he's not going to do that anymore. What more do people want? He got exasperated at one point and stated his intention to comply in a very large font, but that's pretty much the worst you can say of him. PoW has agreed to cease the behaviour that got him blocked, and that is enough for me. He doesn't have to like or agree with all the rules. I am happy for him to get a last chance and in good faith I am assuming there will be no further disruption. But I just get the bad vibe that he's not just being required to stop being a nuisance, people want him to grovel as well, and I do not think that should be required of anyone. Reyk _YO! 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock I have been following as an uninvolved editor since we ran into each other on an AFD. I appreciate his contributions, though his communication style was a little off putting. If he has agreed to take a more civil tone then there is no reason not to let him get back to work. The Eskimo (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock Reyk and Qwyrxian's points are convincing for me. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dayewalker, GiftigerWunsch, either way, and chaos5023. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per Qwyrxian: with "last chance" caveat, mentoring by UncleDouggie and Sonia, and (ideally) a name change. Un-blocks are cheap, re-blocks are cheap. What's costly is editor-time, and I appreciate we're spending a lot of time on this, but by far the most time has been spent by volunteers who support an unblock. Actual contributions are fairly limited, but broadly sound - Protector of Wiki is not Malleus Fatuorum in terms of content, but hopefully that will change as POW develops as an editor. I actually feel comparisons with Malleus are a little misleading: Malleus has a demonstrable ability to work collaboratively (at FAR etc), and I believe the only evidence of POW working collaboratively is in the recent mentoring. I don't believe POW should grovel, but I do believe they should be prepared to work within community norms: the only real way to assess whether that's possible is if POW is unblocked. TFOWR 08:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Per Phantomsteve and Fetchcomms, I support this with conditions. After extensive correspondence with him (using male pronoun for ease), I think that he understands that he needs to work within a certain limit; while I do understand the feeling of his "toying" with us, he doesn't really have much opportunity to do that so long as he stays on content work. He knows quite well how this project works now, and I think that encouraging him to join another English-language project is really not a good idea. If he carries on in his previous fashion here, instant indef. But if he does so on another project, the community may not know his history and thus expend more editor-hours trying to handle him (and in a small community this drama is really, really unwanted), or may go the other way and misinterpret the learning curve (for the other projects are quite different) as disruption. He's under close scrutiny here, and I think he works well on a project of this size (partly because he is less likely to clash with those whom he has not had favourable encounters with in the past). My suggestion is to restrict him to articlespace (and directly content-related discussions), on that "final chance". I'd like to hope that he's sincere about all this, and at the very least he appears to have a more coherent grasp of what this community is about. And on that note, let's give this one more shot. sonia♫ 09:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - After long thought, I've decided to support an unblock. I've been negatively involved with Protector from Simple, and found it troubling that he followed my edits here and commented on them. However, he sent me a very polite apology by email and promised not to interact with me unless I directly contact him, and even asked my permission to edit an article I created. Though I do not have any right to call the article mine, I thought it was a nice gesture of him to ask me first; he has also expressed - I believe - some sincerity, and hopes of editing constructively. I think that with mentoring from Uncle Douggie and Sonia, he could prove, in the long run, a benefit to the project. I also believe that his editing in another English-language project is not ideal, and would cause much harm. However, I must agree that this should be a final chance, and on any further disruption, he should be indefinitely blocked. A user name change would be a nice way to begin afresh, but it's not absolutely necessary. Sincerely, Clementina talk 10:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support with mentoring, as noted. The sins of Pr,of.W do not seem mortal. Collect (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Questions On reflection, a few things are not as clear to me as I thought they were, and it seems there are a few different ideas floating around (unless I've missed something). For the final chance unblock proposals, can we have the all of the terms set out in a separate section? Specifically, if he is restricted to the article space and content related discussions and then an editor runs into a dispute with him, they'll probably end up using WQA/RFC/AN3/ANI/AN/something (in the Wikipedia space or User space) - wouldn't that sort of defeat the effect of the restriction? If so, how is he expected to respond to such situations? Also, how many editors (and specifically which one/s) are mentoring him or volunteering to mentor him (other than UncleDouggie)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As to the last question; I am. As far as I know it's me and UncleDouggie. sonia♫ 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I forget who said "good faith should not require wearing blinders and lowering one's IQ", but it almost certainly applies here. If he's unblocked, at best I see him reblocked in short order, and at worst, months of ANI drama over whether *insert unpleasantry* is block-worthy. Let him take the standard offer. Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:45, 15 October 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.

Create /ɕ/ redirect

Hi, can an admin create a redirect of the page /ɕ/ to Voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative? The character ɕ is part of a blacklist. Thanks. - sik0fewl (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Done]. --Courcelles 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Need an Admin with English Lit and Poetry Expertise

I am looking for an admin who has some expertise in the area of English poetry and literature. There's a content dispute that may need a little oversight and I am out of my league in this field. I don't there is any edit warring yet but some eyes would be helpful. If I understand correctly it is at To Autumn. Thanks JodyB _talk 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike and Rlevse, two of the most experienced admins around, have participated there in the past day, so I think we can take it that things are being overseen. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

Resolved

This was archived unresolved here. As it is still has not been closed, could an uninvolved admin please review the discussion at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it? Thanks, nableezy - 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The RfC has run significantly longer than a month and all of us involved would appreciate knowing which direction in which to head next. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Time for WP:RFRD?

Unresolved

We're getting more and more requests for rev del at ANI. Do we think there's enough frequency here to split off those requests into a "Requests for revision deletion" board? I don't watchlist ANI, but I could watchlist something more modest like this. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Certain requests for revision deletion (outing, personal information, so forth) ought not be posted at ANI at all, nor any central noticeboard. –xeno^talk 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. But the fact remains that we have at least half a dozen on ANI right now. I would expect that you'd put this list on {{admin dashboard}} for quick action, much like our take on {{db-attack}}, such that we'd reduce the risk vs. just accepting them on ANI by quickly handling them. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we could "appropriate" something, like the unblock-l mailing list that has lots of admin eyes on it, yet is still private, to direct such requests to? Because posting on ANI is defeating the whole point of RevDel, as would a separate noticeboard. A separate mailing list might be a better idea, actually. Courcelles 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if something really merits oversight, we're pretty clear on that one, but there are plenty of gross insults meriting RD2 but not oversight. This would be targeted for those, again, like G10s. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Irony. I was literaly just coming here to pose the same question. WP:BURO and WP:BEANS aside, surely it's better to have REVDEL requests somewhere better than the highly visible (and some may say toxic) atmosphere of ANI. I'm not sure what my opinion is on wether it's better to have a board or a mailing list (gut instinct is that I don't like mailing lists) but it's clear we need something per Jclemens. Pedro :  Chat  19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote for a board. Instructions should make clear that you should not identify anything in the objectionable content when posting diffs. These requests can be handled very quickly. --Selket ^Talk 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I missed the boat on this. Are the rev-delete criteria that broad that items which merit rev deletion show up dozens of time a day? How many things are we rev deleting which would be better left in the history and reverted? Protonk (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The main things appear to be BLP violations in edit summaries (which can't just be reverted) and extremely offensive BLP violations in the text of an article. Personal information happens but is rarer. -Selket ^Talk 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, based on my reading of ANI today, it certainly seems like it. Feel free to peruse it and make up your own mind on whether the number of requests is based on merit (they should have indeed been made and done) or overuse (better simply reverted, as you say). Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this today, considering how many revdel requests are on the ANI board right now. Since I've found myself doing so many of them lately anyway, I'd be happy to sign up for a mailing list or watchlist a noticeboard, whichever way people want to go. I just don't think that ANI is the best place in the long term for these requests. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make this more clear on the WP:REVDEL policy page, just as it is on the requests for oversight page? I do have to agree with Xeno, that we should be discouraging people to post Revision deletion requests on ANI or any noticeboard as that only creates a "Streisand effect", which we don't want. –MuZemike 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, though, we can be sure that any request getting posted at ANI will get rapidly dealt with; earlier today, I dealt with one report within three minutes of it getting posted. Unless it's oversightable stuff (which should always be emailed anyway), I think overall it's better for these reports to get a minute or two of high-profile attention than to send it off to what is certain to be an under-staffed and under-utilized mailing list, where requests may end up getting left around for hours or missed entirely (which does happen, even on the OTRS lists at times). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The ability to stick a {{resolved}} on an entry is one reason I prefer a noticeboard to a mailing list. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes not, though; we had an outing issue on ANI yesterday which ended up with at least three admins having to revdelete about fifty revisions on half a dozen articles. By the time that had been cleared up, any editor who was interested would have known who the editor concerned was in real life. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that situation is the exception, not the rule. That was a situation where personal information was sitting on a talk page for 2 years without being reverted. I doubt that happens a lot (or am I being naive?). -- Atama頭 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing issues shouldn't go to ANI anyway; those DO belong at the oversight list for that reason. Normal revdelete stuff - grossly offensive attacks, copyright vios, etc., can be handled in due time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything that needs RevDel also needs public postings. Noticeboards are fast, but visible. Mailing lists are private, but slower. I don't think there's a good solution either way. I would prefer a mailing list over a noticeboard, but both have their drawbacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider, though, that a RevDel mailing list OR noticeboard can explicitly exclude anything that meets the criteria for oversighting. RevDel on the way to oversighting is not something appropriate for such a noticeboard; RevDel for inappropriate content that does not rise to that level is. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true, but people will inevitably ignore things like that and post OSable stuff publicly because either they don't understand the gravity of the situation or they don't bother reading important notices. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Although a standalone specialised board could really, really whack people in the face with the need not to do that. Also such a board would provide a convenient single place to go for removing info from public view, since in explaining the difference between RevDel and Oversight it would point people to the latter's email address. This would also been opportunity to clarify under what circumstances Oversight is now preferred to RevDel, which I don't think is clear enough. eg at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight some of the points seem like RevDel. Finally, it would help keep experience with handling these requests in one place, which may be helpful for consistency. Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'm afraid is going to happen is that people are going to start posting stuff that should be oversighted on-wiki to this noticeboard, making it visible in two places instead of just one. –MuZemike 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if that really happens, even after taking advantage of the specialisation to make the issue much more prominent and clearer than it is now at AN/ANI, then we can delete the board and try something else. Rd232 ^talk 08:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that those who wish to harass users via outing will game the system to make the personal information known in as many places as possible. Unless there is a bright line against posting personal information, like if in doubt do not do it, if unsure, do not do it, etc, it will continue to happen for a variety of reasons. Until the consequences of doing so are clearly not worth the thrill of harassment, it will continue. Bullies will always justify their tactics until it is clearly and uniformly forbidden. 71.139.5.184 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but as we already have {{Copyvio-histpurge}}/Category:Requested history purges and {{Non-free reduced}}/Category:Rescaled fairuse images, both of which involve revision deletions (AFAIK anyway), why not implement something similar along these lines? In any case, as I commented at the TfD for {{Copyvio-histpurge}}, I don't think it would be appropriate to delete that template without having something to replace it. PC78 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Seems that the discussion has died down a bit, and people have staked out a few definite positions, which I'm going to try to summarize here:

Position 1: Nothing new is needed

The status quo position. Editors can be encouraged to use the oversight mailing list and/or discouraged from posting anything to ANI. The risk of centralizing RevDel requests anywhere per either of the following outweighs the benefits in doing so.

Support

1. 2nd choice to establishing an "WikiEN-admins" mailing list, see discussion below. –MuZemike 15:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
2. First choice per my comments above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Sorry, but I just don't see any good way to deal with this. ANI has its speed benefits, and hopefully no one is stupid enough to post private info there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
4. No matter how fast ANI or a new board can take care of the problem, material that is subject to revdel should not be posted anywhere in the same way that oversight requests should not be onwiki. I have no objects to a new mailing list, but don't think it's necessary. -Atmoz (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Kevin Baas^talk 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
6. I agree that we should discourage new posting of the offensive material on site by making a new board that hosts it. Anyone that puts the noticeboard on their watchlist will see the content. This looks like a well intended proposal, but would led to more focus on the content not less. For example, an internet site could easily find the offensive material if it monitors the noticeboard. Also, the content is not always corrected perfectly with revdel on the first try. It is not uncommon for extra diff with offensive material to be left on the page in error. So we are potential taking a page with low page views to one with much higher page views. For these reasons, I recommend against a centralized noticeboard. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

   I respect your concern but "Anyone that puts the noticeboard on their watchlist will see the content. " is exaggerated. Generally people will be sensible enough not to put sensitive content in an edit summary or on the board itself (and revdel is available for errors here); so it's generally just diffs to the content, which people will need to first go to the board for, and then click on. Diffs which will disappear as soon as the revdel is done. And I'm not quite sure who is supposed to be out there looking on a continuous basis for revdel content on anybody on Wikipedia in case something interesting gets rev-deleted (meaning: no source for it). I can't quite see a market for that. Anyway, we can slightly guard against this by keeping even the subject/topic out of the edit summary - eg just "RevDel Request 817". Rd232 ^talk 10:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

   Everyone that reports a contribution to be revdel will have the page added to there watchlist, right? So overtime the number of people who are alerted about new content will steadily grow. But I'm not primarily concerned about the innocent rubberneckers, but the people who deliberately troll. Our internal discussions are monitored by people who are banned and in dispute with Wikipedia editors/admins and WMF, and the also people who are the subject of articles. When I checked my email today before posting this I saw an email on checkuser mailing list about a vandal account who was trolling and mentioning the name of a banned wikpeida editor in their trolling on meta. I'm very concerned that putting the content in a centralized location will expose more low profile content to these vandals and trolls. We know that trolls and banned users are already doing this to some degree. This will make it easier for them to see the newest content that is problematic enough to be remove. IMO, we will be making the situation worse for the sake of efficiency of processing the requests. Also, my concern is that people will get the impression that placing the content on this page is the "right" way to get it removed when it would be by far better to quietly contact an active admin to do it. Also, on this page are there going to be discussions about whether to keep revdel, or whether to escalate to suppression. Will someone be clerking the page to keep out discussions and questions about content? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   Well as I said below, it comes down to which you think is more of a problem: A) people seeing Bad content in the article before it's RevDeleted, because they're reading the article (or at least watching it and seeing the Bad edit) or B) vandals and trolls looking to cause problems, and deciding to use Bad content to help them, and getting easier, centralised access to it, albeit in very brief bites before it's RevDeleted. I don't see any easy answers to prevent both - the current solutions offered basically trade off A and B (and to me A feels marginally more of a Real Life problem and B marginally more Wikipedia, though both have both qualities). More complete answers might be some completely new approach, like say a Site Notice type thing which is only visible to admins (and can be dismissed immediately once the issue is handled). Or else a board which can only be read by admins (but permitting posts from anyone). In the mean time, the current system defaults to ANI, which has the worst qualities of both A and B. We can emphasise at the new board that if you can catch an admin active right now (eg get an onwiki or IRC confirmation they'll respond quickly to an email you're about to send), then that may be preferable to posting on the board. Again: this explanation is not an option at ANI. Rd232 ^talk 11:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Nothing new is needed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not in favour of either of the other two options; more consideration needed before we do either. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• You gotta be kidding. We're supposed to be trying to decrease the impact of these postings, not highlighting them, with a noticeboard whose history will include all of the articles that have been vandalized....or users who have been on the receiving end of harassment....or the ones that actually need to be oversighted. Try this sample post to ANI instead. "HI, I need an admin to do a revdelete, could an admin please email me? Thanks!" Much better to wait fifteen minutes, with three people seeing the problem edit, than wait five minutes with 300, including folks taking screenshots of it just to prove how inept we are. Risker (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • screenshot of what? A specialised board can provide detailed guidance on how to make a request without revealing any more info than necessary, as well as providing guidance on how to try contacting someone directly instead. Rd232 ^talk 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Per the other functionaries who have explained why we should not do this. oppose any of the other options. A noticeboard is a very bad idea. A new mailing list is a bad idea. Lar: t/c 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• A noticeboard would defeat the purpose of the procedure, Revision delete is intended to hide revisions, not call them to general attention. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well said, I was about to make my own comment but DGG has hit the nail squarely on the head. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Not convinced on the issues some have raised here. RevDelete (in this sense) is not the same as oversight/suppression and doesn't need the same degree of off-wiki privacy. It's in effect a cousin of WP:CSD. Attack pages may be emailed to oversighters or asked about off-wiki, but the norm is they are simply tagged on-wiki and dealt with by admins as a routine on-wiki matter. RevDelete (in admin mode, as being discussed here) handles similar kinds of issues. So I see no problem with it being visible on-wiki that RevDelete has been requested. A noticeboard seems the sensible option. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  We don't have a CSD noticeboard. They are tagged, as you point out, and dealt with sans a public record discussion of them being left behind. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But they are handled on-wiki and nobody worries if they are seen, because by and large they aren't sensitive issues (as RFRD is not really for "sensitive issues"). Any user at all can watch the category on-wiki and look at the material due to be deleted before an admin does so, whether it's a copyright breach (G12), an attack page (G10), whatever. The same applies to RevDelete. If someone really wants to see that malware link, or the page someone wrote "fuck all you fucking fuckers" or "I want to fuck Admin X in the ass" or 200 copies of "You lost the game!" before it's revdeleted, frankly let them. Sensitive and oversightable material still goes off-wiki.

There's always been a distinction that routine admin deletable stuff isn't a problem if it gets viewed by others before an admin actually deletes it (AFD, MFD, CSD, {{db-reason}}). Let's avoid the slippery slope where gradually more and more stuff that doesn't need off-wiki handling gets expected to have it anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 2: Add a new noticeboard

A new noticeboard provides a centralized place, much like the monitoring of {{db-attack}} where RevDel'able material can be widely watchlisted and quickly handled by interested admins. We can NOINDEX it, point people to oversight mailing list for serious issues, and not archive it to keep the Streisand effect to a minimum to mitigate the known risks.

Support

1. As proposer. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Sounds good. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Makes sense to me. Disagree it will necessarily have slower responses than ANI. Yes, ANI has more watchers, but the relevant watching will be from active admins, which is a pretty small group - and with proper announcements, that shouldn't be an issue. If anything, it might lead to quicker responses, because ANI has so much else going on that (a) requests won't appear on watchlists the same way they will on a specialised board and (b) quite a few admins basically ignore ANI as taking too much time and trouble, and at least some of these may watch the new board. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Can't hurt to give it a try. I agree with Rd232's points as well. Airplaneman ✈ 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Good idea, we already have the category for attack pages. Make it like AIV, dealt-with reports should automatically be removed. Maybe make disposable date-based subpages that are deleted a soon as everything for that day is done? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
6. The lesser of all evils. I think it would likely be well maintained to be honest - AIV is rarely backlogged for example and I'd view it as a similar board. Pedro :  Chat  13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
7. I think it would help get these requests off ANI and would bring faster response than an email list. -- Atama頭 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Seems like a sensible proposal, as worded, above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
9. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Give it a try. I like the bot idea. MER-C 02:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Yes. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
12. Sounds like a good idea, but oppose the use of a bot for revision deletion. This task should be made by humans, to avoid bugs in the bot causing problems. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Provided that it bears a prominent warnings, including an editnotice, that requests for the removal of non-public information are NOT to be placed on the noticeboard under any circumstances, but must instead be emailed to the oversight list or otherwise transmitted to oversighters privately. WP:AN/I currently lacks such an editnotice, and the warning in the header is buried. Also, a dedicated noticeboard easily facilitates the revision deletion of the requests themselves, when necessary, while WP:AN/I will probably have too many unrelated intervening edits. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
14. As long as the material linked to there isn't oversightable, this is probably the best way. The page's header and editnotice can ensure that users know what not to put there, and it's as visible as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages, which I believe is on the same level. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Support per precisely Peter Karlsen's thoughts above. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Would result in plenty of people handling the requests, so response times would be similar to AIV or RFPP, and would stop these requests piling up on ANI. Possibly we could delete the page once a day to remove any problematic material in the edit history. Hut 8.5 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
17. I think it is a good idea. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Support per my comment in previous section. RevDelete in the sense being discussed is used as a cousin to WP:CSD which are tagged on-wiki and not seen as a problem to do so. The kinds of issue for which RevDelete will be used here, are similar to those which have CSD templates and where on-wiki tagging and eventual admin action have been used for years. No problem with them being listed at a noticeboard. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Support - easiest option. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - In the case of some edits which infer that they reveal passwords (as I reported about Perry High School (Gilbert, Arizona)), I knew the safe approach would be to redact them as they are of no use to an encyclopedia. Unfamiliar users won't have to take such reports to AIV then. mechamind90 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Too high-profile, and likely wouldn't be handled as quickly as they would on ANI. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• What if we have a bot that automatically revdels revisions submitted to the board (with limits on number of revisions per user in a time period and perhaps require submitter to be autoconfirmed, etc. to prevent abuse) pending admin review? This way any revisions submitted would be revdel'd immediately and invisible to most people, but we still retain the benefits of a public noticeboard. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What, so we'd then go back and check for abuses, reverse them, and block editors for requests made in bad faith? Hmm... that's a radically different proposal. Not sure I've thought through all the implications yet. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In any case an obvious, um, advantage of this noticeboard idea is that it permits automation. E.g. very much in the spirit of a completely open Wikipedia something similar to Deletionpedia could be set up. A bot could save all problematic edits on a server outside the Wikimedia Foundation's hands before an admin gets around to dealing with them. This would take inclusionism to a new level and would certainly be useful for all kinds of research about Wikipedia. Hans Adler 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • This is such a distant possibility that any further discussion of it is really an unnecessary and possibly even counter-productive distraction. In any case, if volumes ever get high enough for people to seriously consider automation, I doubt the existence of a board would make all that much difference. In other words... come back c. 2015 and see how things are going. :) Rd232 ^talk 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It appears that you've come around (based on what some more recent posts are saying) to realising that this is not "such a distant possibility" as to be discounted, but rather a very real clear and present danger. Did you want to formally retract the above and then apologize to those you cast aspersions on? Might help soften some of the opposition to any change in the status quo among many of those who have actual experience with oversight and other privacy sensitive roles within WMF. Because your latest proposal, that RFO be enhanced to speak to the revdel aspect without any encouragement of posting any private information, is a lot closer to what's needful here if we want to properly respect privacy and not enable those who actively wish the project and its volunteers harm than where you started from. Which is to be applauded. Lar: t/c 14:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Hersfold. We are taking content that often is only on a page with a very low number of view, and moving it to a centralized page where many more people will see it. Seems to me this approach would make it possible for someone to monitor the page and see their offensive comments repeated. Some of our worst vandals look for new people to harass. Copycat vandals are a problem, and could be made worse if the material is centralized. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not obvious that many more people will see it than on ANI, which is the status quo. Non-admins wouldn't have much of a reason to monitor the new board (would they?) and the setup (unlike at ANI) can very clearly be limiting info to diffs, which die for non-admins as soon as RevDel is done. "Some of our worst vandals look for new people to harass." I can't comment on that - I'm not aware of anything like that and it doesn't obviously make sense to me (I thought vandals generally targeted editors, unless they had a real-life grudge). And if the material is swiftly RevDeleted, copycat vandals don't have anything to copy. And remains true that if this actually happens, we can pull the plug very easily. There's also the issue of alternatives: the only one which avoids this risk entirely is a new admin mailing list, which creates issues with timeliness of response, as well as perhaps coordination problems. A priori, I'd put not removing things from the page in question with due speed as a higher problem than potential problems from centralisation, but maybe I'm just unfamiliar with that territory. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, most people have the sense to find an administrator on a one-to-one basis to ask for a revdelete. And the only "timeliness" issue is the number of readers who see the problem edit between its identification and its removal. Fifteen minutes with three people seeing it is a lot better than 5 minutes with 300 people seeing it...copying it...discussing it... Risker (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The 3 people are more likely the ones who actually care about the subject and perhaps know the person IRL; the 300 (in 5 minutes?!) are likely admins and random passersby. Rd232 ^talk 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • And malicious lurkers rubbing their hands in glee that their bot gets to auto archive the content all the links posted... lots of raw material for later mischief in one handy place. We should not be encouraging anyone to post any details of the problems themselves and a notice board is likely to do just that. Lar: t/c 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
          • It need not, and why would it? As explained, it can be designed as merely a central place for contacting admins about RevDelete, with no-info logging of request handling. This would be better than the status quo, which is ANI an unknown number of requests never made by people who are unaware of RevDel or how to get a request executed. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

I have added this straw poll to {{Centralized discussion}}. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Eww, the idea is to revdel something before lots of people notice it. If we create a noticeboard, people will use it rather than dig around a bit further until they find the way to privately request revdel. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And a big notice at the noticeboard suggesting they contact someone privately wouldn't help them? You could even have a system by which admins log themselves in and out at the board as available right now for private messages. (Ideally with some kind of software backup to check for them forgetting to log out.) Rd232 ^talk 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 3: Add a new mailing list

A mailing list loses the {{resolved}} capability of a noticeboard, but it's relatively simple to restrict membership to admins such that we're not putting requests for rev deletion directly onto Wikipedia... as long as people follow the instructions.

Support

Discussion

• If we were to go forward with a "WikiEN-admins" mailing list, it would definitely need to be non-public for obvious reasons; non-admins can post to the list, but they will not be able to subscribe to it or view any other emails in it (similar to "unblock-en-l" regarding unblock requests). Something like this would also open the door for other forms of (at times sensitive) discourse exclusively amongst en.wiki admins. I'm leaning towards supporting if at the least to see if this is a viable route to go, but perhaps more discussion is necessary if we wish to go in this direction. –MuZemike 15:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ewww. I get enough emails already from the lists I'm already on. Also has severe risk for these requests to fall through the cracks and never get noticed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Can't people just send stuff into WP:RFO's mailing list like they do now? That's what I do. Gets the job done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Also, if there are two mailing lists, some mail will go to one place that should have been sent to the other, and then it will be forwarded to the right place - increasing the net exposure of information that's being removed because it shouldn't be exposed. Better to just make the current Oversight infrastructure a front end for all of this stuff. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• a new mailing list for admins could be quite useful, but it should be considered with more than this in mind, by way of a full RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Neutralhomer is correct, Requests for Oversight is a better alternative than a noticeboard. First off, a goodly number of published requests for revision deletion have actually been serious enough for oversight. Secondly, the oversighters keep a pretty close watch on the mailing list, and most requests are DISCREETLY addressed in a short time. Finally, the more people who are on a mailing list, the higher the likelihood of leaks. Any mailing list with a thousand people on it is going to leak like a sieve. Risker (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm confused: are you suggesting all RevDeletion be handled via RFO (discounting cases of admins being approached directly)? Doesn't that require all the work to be done by oversighters, or else admins to have access to it (which I thought they didn't)? Rd232 ^talk 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • This board has received, what, 5 requests for revision deletion in the last month? There were hundreds of revision deletions during that time. The oversighters can handle the few that aren't already addressed in other ways. But creating a noticeboard whose main effect will be to PUBLICISE EDITS NEEDING REVISION DELETION defeats the purpose of revision deletion. As to whether or not it will be overwork on the part of oversighters, the oversight team had no difficulty keeping up with the volume of requests before admins had revdelete, and it would be even simpler now with better workload management and a wider timezone availability of oversighters. The argument that it would be too hard for a newbie to find an admin doesn't make a lot of sense; the biggest issue that newbies face is that they don't even know that certain edits can be revdeleted, and they're no more likely to go to the "right" noticeboard than to anywhere else. Here's a question for you, though. Why are there so many revision deletions? Has anyone been reviewing them to ensure that policy is being followed? I'd venture to say that at least 30% of the ones I look at aren't covered by policy. Risker (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "Has anyone been reviewing them to ensure that policy is being followed?" - how? A specialised board would permit some reviewing, as even after swift deletion, other admins could look. Consistency is one of the arguments for having a board: and it's a big argument, because there's quite lot of uncertainty both among admins and among everyone else as to what qualifies. The former figuring out some kind of agreed practice would be a basis for more clarity all round. Rd232 ^talk 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course, if oversighters can handle the load that well, then having them do all RevDeletion would be one way to both centralise and ensure consistency. Leave admins the RevDel right but as a matter of practice, point everything to WP:RFO. Rd232 ^talk 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No matter how vociferously you shout "PUBLICISE EDITS NEEDING REVISION DELETION", that doesn't mean that this board will do much of that. I've made various suggestions as to how the board can make posting at the board a last resort, with alternatives given at the board itself which avoid making any info public. Those alternatives are not publicised anywhere else! There needs to be a central place to handle this, even if the place itself doesn't actually handle the info itself and thus isn't really a board. But it would make sense for it to handle posts on occasion as a last resort. Rd232 ^talk 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • it needs to not do any of that. Not one bit. Else I think regardless of consensus it needs to not be done... consensus cannot override WMF privacy policy. I do like the idea about tracking that mail was sent, and that it was handled, without any actual details of what the mail says, but as soon as any details are made public, no. Not acceptable. Lar: t/c 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 4: status quo

Position 1 does not adequately describe the status quo ante, which is unhelpful. Currently we have

1. WP:RFO
2. WP:ANI
3. Contacting admins directly.

1. currently ignores RevDel. 2. is highly visible (most watched page?), has no relevant guidance for RevDel, and if it had any, it would be pretty well lost in the existing noise of instruction. 3. Is haphazard, and especially for newbies problematic. For anyone, creates the problem of knowing whether an admin will actually respond to an email or user talk page request in a timely manner. Now let's review this again: who supports this? Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do. (nice straw dog by the way but ok) It is not perfect but it's better than either of alternatives 2 or 3. Especially 2 (a new noticeboard) which is fraught with peril. Lar: t/c 18:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Status quo works for me, as apparently it does for the majority of people looking for revision deletion. Please note these statistics here: Wikipedia:Revision deletion/Statistics Given this data, it's pretty clear that this is a tool being used by a wide range of administrators, and that it is being used very regularly; the numbers you are seeing here are only from five months. As I noted above, I am concerned to see this many revision deletions being done; in fairness, when administrators got the tool, some went and reviewed long-present data that was not covered under the strict deletion policy but was covered under the revision deletion policy. Risker (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  As an aside, do we have any idea what a similar slice of oversighting actions was in the preceding period? I'd be interested in knowing if a lot of these revdels are things that previously would have gone and been accepted for oversight, or if it is the wider availability of the tool perhaps a less firm grasp on what can and cannot be revdel'd. Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By and large, oversight only oversighted things that would get the foundation sued and personal data about people. Statements such as "Foo is a ***ing *** whose ***ing mother ***s ***ing goats" would just have been reverted. Go back prior to revdelete in the history of Jeremy's talkpage and you'll see what I mean. These days they revdelete the 4chan stuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 5: RevDel Central

A "noticeboard" (really a RevDel equivalent of RFO) designed as a central place for explaining how to make RevDel requests, elaborating some kind of system to make contacting admins by email more transparent (without making any info public) and less haphazard. Exactly how this would work can be hashed out later; the principles of this proposal are i) no info public and ii) a central place to explain and manage requests. This can be done in any number of ways (and would probably evolve over time, like everything else). For example it could be structured as a log with "request number # sent by email to Admin Y at time such and such", and after deletion the admin responds on the board with a link so other admins can review. Or, if we didn't even want that level of publicness (though that's hardly more than the existing log), we could devise some system involving requests going by email to several admins, so that the decision is reviewed entirely offline, and the log merely shows requests and the timeliness of fulfilment (not even who, since that would leave contribs checkable for Clues). The board could, for instance, provide a list of Currently Online Admins (who are willing to deal with RevDel requests). Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1. As proposer. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 6: Oversight

Merge everything into WP:RFO, and have oversighters' mailing list deal with RevDel requests. The RFO page can present the "email admins directly" option, and leave the Oversight mailing list as a fallback. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, this is the only sane option. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yep. Lar: t/c 14:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I think Option 2 is evolving towards handling this through email so it's going to be mostly the same. —Soap— 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient consensus?

I think we have gotten sufficient consensus to create the noticeboard, so someone should go ahead and do it! Meanwhile, I'll be designing a header and editnotice in my userspace. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's sufficient consensus for a draft to be helpful at this point; it may help overcome some reservations. Rd232 ^talk 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a little bit "cart before the horse", but those who oppose the board in principle seem to underestimate the range of design options available. Besides what I've already said above, you could design the board so that all that's seen publicly is a log of requests (with no useful information in the log, not even a link, least not whilst it's any use to non-admins). For example the log could be structured as "request number # sent by email to Admin Y at time such and such", and after deletion the admin responds on the board with a link so other admins can review. Or, if we didn't even want that level of publicness (though that's hardly more than the existing log), we could devise some system involving requests going by email to several admins, so that the decision is reviewed entirely offline, and the log merely shows requests and the timeliness of fulfilment. Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for something sufficiently clever to avoid BEANS issues, that actually gets coded, actually works, and actually diverts traffic away from ANI. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I imagined that my idea you're replying to wouldn't require coding, just instructions to people on what to do, and a template or two. Rd232 ^talk 20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Revisiting this, there's still a clear numerical majority favoring a new noticeboard, but at the same time there are also a number of pretty senior people saying it's a bad idea. I'm simply not seeing why it's a bad idea, given that we're already getting multiple requests at ANI, that the content in question will only last on-wiki as long as it takes an admin to RevDel it, and that it doesn't change Oversight at all. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We need more input I think. Myself, a notice board that merely tracks that requests were made is preferable to one that gives links to the items in need of attention, and my opposition to it is softer. But a notice board to track this would be, in my view, fairly complex in operation so I'm not seeing the benefit. Lar: t/c 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is

User:Access Denied/RFRDHeader Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edited to make correct use clearer. Please edit further. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests

Hopefully no-one can find any reason to object to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests, which can supplement any other approach. Please take a look. Rd232 ^talk 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For the Americans I think we should add a redirect at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfill RevisionDelete requests, and maybe even a redirect with a name like CAT:RFRD since people will probably want to browse the list more often than they would with most mainspace categories. —Soap— 22:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Actually I was thinking maybe it could have a userbox, which would have the advantage of being able to include a link to the instructions on the category page or elsewhere. In fact, it would be rather helpful if those more familiar with RevDel requests could construct a more detailed User Guide for RevDel requests, with fictional examples of what sort of thing probably does or probably does not qualify for the different RevDel criteria. (AFAIK this does not exist...) Rd232 ^talk 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)