Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233

Cherry picking of facts to make a subject look bad

Do we have an essay for the following event? A user comes to an article. The user dislikes the subject, often because it jives with his/her political or religious beliefs. So the user will find events of undue weight which make the subject look bad. Example:

• (From a pro-Star Wars POV pusher, adding the following to an article)====Fight with fans==== On August 3, 2004, Patrick Stewart was seen fighting with fans and yelling obscenities at them. (Further discussion about the event in an ostensibly neutral fashion, but the real point of the text is to show the reader an event that makes him look like a scumbag).<ref>(include blog post as reference where the blog thinks this is a huge scandal)</ref> (Please note, this is of course a fictional event; Mr. Stewart never did such a thing on such a date)

I see this kind of thing happen all the time, and I don't see any essay for it, even though it kind of sucks. The closest I can find is WP:CHERRY, which doesn't quite fit, and WP:UNDUE, which I don't think quite fits either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it? GiantSnowman 17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No; that's about deletion discussions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed this in performer articles too; it seems some editors, after seeing a lacklustre show, will see the need to report on that bad show. Usually they can find a blog post to back up their unsatisfactory experience. Sometimes WP serves as a release valve for angry people. The Interior (Talk) 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, 'I don't like it' is about deletion discussions; 'I just don't like it' covers article content (among other stuff) GiantSnowman 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry and Undue seem to cover it, unless you're looking for an essay describing the motives behind why the user wants to make the edits? Or using bad sources to justify the material? --Onorem♠Dil 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:CHERRY refers to a coatrack, so it's only when the user wants to talk about another subject entirely. In this case, the user isn't trying to change the subject, rather to criticize the current subject. As for WP:UNDUE, yes this falls under its umbrella, but undue weight can be a reference to any undue weight whatsoever, whereas I'm referring only to the type of undue weight that is given when a person wants to make the subject look bad and cherry picks subjects that accomplish this purpose. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think it works for conveying the idea about what's wrong with that type of edit. WP:CHERRY may be located on the page about coatracks, but its argument clearly stands by itself too. (Anyway...back on topic. I don't know about a separate fact picking essay myself, but I'll look around a bit) --Onorem♠Dil 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I no longer pay much attention to policy pages, but WP:UNDUE ought to be the correct diagnosis. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the part of WP:UNDUE beginning with the benchmark: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."? Cherry-picking is disproportionate coverage. DMacks (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

facepalm... --MuZemike 01:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a good essay is the one I wrote. Not sure. Try reading Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat#Levitation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to pile on, WP:UNDUE is probably the most relevant policy in this situation, though several others are also relevant (most obviously, WP:BLP and WP:RS). From my experience though, this is a difficult issue to deal with - I'm aware of several editors who cherry pick facts they like from academic sources to write articles which push their views while ignoring other parts of the source which contradict this viewpoint and/or deliberately reference only a narrow range of sources when developing articles on controversial topics in which there are competing views. This is obviously highly dishonest editing, but there's no clear-cut policy which can be pointed to. 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Nick-D (talk)

I disagree. This policy seems to be pretty much covering it Giving "equal validity".--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK and WP:TE. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You have hit upon an important hole in Wikipedia policies. The one that should take care of the (wp:undue of wp:npov) is (other than its vague goal statement) is toothless here because it's nuts and bolts calls for going by prevalence in sources, which is, from a practical standpoint, unusable. If the material is truly about the individual, that still might be of some help. If it is not and put in for effect (i.e. his uncle is a child molester) then you hit the bigger hole because it should be excludable based on lacking direct relevance, but wp:npov is missing the important metric of relevance. North8000 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems like an interesting hole in the policies. I've posted in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Relevance to see if the degree of relevance is covered by other policies and if not, maybe it should be. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSH, maybe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That givers the general goals and givs people an idea of venues to pursue it further, but doesn't really have any specifics that can be invoked to affect the situation. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Two users with same user picture

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

---

User:Sarojkumarsahoo and User:Sarozkumar will have same user picture. Is it Okay.--Musamies (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same individual, 2 different accounts; probably lost password to first and created second. Neither has edited for years - nothing to see here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you a) discussed the policies around WP:Alternate accounts with them, and b) advised them (both of them - even though they are obviously the same person) that you have brought them here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be pointless as the user (in both his incarnations) hasn't edited since 2008. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Recent activity

Why did it look like it was uploaded to commons today? [1] ? Nobody Ent 23:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I figured the answer was that the image had been uploaded and deleted, only for someone else to upload another one under the same name, but the logs don't show any evidence that there's ever been another image (either at en:wp or at Commons) named Saroj.jpg. Saroj1.rout exists, but his only edits are to his sandbox so far. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like uploaded the photo on commons Nobody Ent 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't explain why the users linked a nonexistent file. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The filename is fairly generic. It's easily possible both users planned to upload the file or just didn't understand how files work. If you've been around enough, you've probably seen people try to use files on their computers and stuff like that. In this specific case, one of them originally used example.jpg [2] and this was in article space before being moved to their user page [3]. BTW I said 'both' users. If you look at the info, I'm not sure either user is the same person (and possibly neither are the same person as the file uploader). While they have similar names, and come from the same Indian state, it sounds like they come from different places in the state. Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Actually it seems clear from the user talk page at least one of them did upload an image under that name in 2006 but it was deleted. Checking the en deletion log or page logs confirms this [4] [5]. I guess this was somehow missed by Nyttend, perhaps they checked out the wrong thing or there was a bug.

From this, it seems what happened is User:Sarozkumar uploaded a file allegedly of themselves in 2006 and used it in their user page but it was deleted due to copyright concerns. They never bothered to remove the link to the image from their user page. User:Sarojkumarsahoo in 2008 created a page in article space where they linked to the image, the page was moved to their user page but the image was apparently never uploaded so was always a red link. Later just recently, User:Saroj1.rout uploaded a file with that name to commons. Whether this person is the same as either of the previous 2 users is unknown but because both user pages were linking to that file, it appeared on their user pages leading to the confusion over the identities. To avoid this confusion and given the lack of editing for a long time, I've removed the links to the images on their user pages. The current picture could easily not be of either user & if it's deleted, so to the next time.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from Checker Fred

We received an unblock request on the unblock mailinglist from Checker Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm putting the mailconversation (with Checker Fred's approval) here for evaluation. The only change is some formatting for easier reading:

I created an account named Checker Fred but got blocked after being called a sock puppet on Wikipedia. So after I was blocked I just left the site, I did not know what I did wrong to get blocked and was following the rules and everything. So I mainly went to tv.com and the iCarly wiki to do my editing. So when this iCarly issue came up I created another account Named Oolith and it got blocked under the same sock. The user did not explain anything to me and just blocked my account. I did request an ip over ride because I do edit from shared ip address like shools and work, but I never created the Simulation12. My edits under Checker Fred are very good and helpfull to the site and I don't see why I was blocked. I have made good edits while I was there, I was able to help inprove pages and other issues no the site. I would like to try and work thigs out with MuZemike and beable to edit on Wikipedia. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a resonable mannor. (Checker Fred)

Hi Checker Fred,

When I read your unblock request, I read the following:

• You have an account named Checker Fred which was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12 on june 30th
• You have a second account named Oolith from which you requested an IP block exempt
• You are not the same person as Simulation12

Some questions remain open:

• Have you ever created any other accounts?
• What is your relation to Simulation12?
• Have you ever edited anonymously since the account Checker Fred was blocked? (Me)

I have not created any more accounts other then Checker Fred and Oolith on Wikipedia. At the time I created Oolith, I forgot that I created Checker Fred on Wikipedia because I was haven't been on the site in awhile. I have no relation to Simulation12. On January 28, I open a case on Simulation12 because while I was editing I found a user named Simulation22 and another User named The Cool Kat2 so I reported it as a sock of Simulation12, I have herd of this user while looking at The Cool Kat Archivies and found that about Simulation12. as The Cool Kat2 that account just looked a bit odd to me, so I just went ahead and reoprted that one as well. So after I found out I reported I started using Wikipedia on December 29, 2009 to edit pages from my favorite television shows and help out on the site. After I left there, I have not anonymously used the site. I was mainly on tv.com ruffmanfan88 and Ruffman882 (first account can not log in anymore,) and the iCarly wiki under Checker Fred. that I just started using more often on the iCarly wiki. Since the iCarly issue came up again, I wanted to give my input to Wikipedia as well, since it was mainly started there. So I ended up creating Oolith. I would love to have a second chance and show you that I can edit in a reasonable manor and work this problem out.. Please ask any other questions if you have any. (Checker Fred)

Checker Fred was blocked as a sockpuppet of Simulation12, though there was no technical evidence (came out as unrelated on checkuser), on behavioural evidence. I find the assertion that Checker Fred has absolutely no relation to Simulation12 hard to swallow, from the support vote on the non-transcluded RfA of Simulation12, though it is possible.

I would also like to point out that this case is from 2010, and that there has been no further disruption from simulation12 since that year. That solidly puts us in standard offer territory in either case. Heavy iCarly interest does give me some competence fears, but nothing insurmountable. I suggest that unblocking, with a clear instruction on what is, and what isn't accepted, is a good idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will note the following users are  Confirmed as each other:

• Oolith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Billey bob (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Master of disguises (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CookieGrabber (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 1mikie19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bessie Yeh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Checker Fred/Simulation12 has been actively engaging in an off-wiki harassment campaign against myself and several other users. User:The Master of disguises was a sleeper sock that was recently used to engage in email harassment; I won't copypaste any emails, but he stated that he has dozens of other sleepers that he will use to continue said harassment until he is unblocked. These socks have been, for the past year or so, been sending harassing emails to myself and others (one of them even posed as his mother).

Some unfounded sock allegations have been made on my talk page on Commons here (as well as via an en.wiki unblock request on an IP here), none of which are true after checking. I feel this is due to failure to WP:OWN the iCarly (season 4) article (amongst all the other articles, including Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman, Simulation12's main target), as evidenced here.

Given the recent harassment, I feel that WP:OFFER has not been met in any way, shape, or form, and that any considerations of unban or unblock of any users here are ill-advised. --MuZemike 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, for some reason I missed those on the SPI. Oolith is Checker Fred by own admission. Could you point to where Oolith is  Confirmed? I can't quickly find it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose CheckerFred is Sim12, that much is obvious to anyone familiar with chasing his endless army of socks. Fred knows perfectly well why he is blocked, because he is one of the 90 socks created by Sim12. OFFER does not apply to a user who creates 90 sockpuppets and won't admit to it, even now. OFFER does not apply to a user who tried to become an admin with a sockpuppet. And it certainly shouldn't apply to a user who created socks and then reported them as socks of another user they didn't like. We don't need these silly games here, and the disruption did not end when CheckerFred was blocked. Ninety chances is more than enough and we shouldn't let this phony "I don't know what I did wrong" act fool us just because some time has passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The requirements of WP:OFFER have not been fulfilled. If anything Simulation 12 should be community banned. Nevermind, seems he already is banned. Night Ranger (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I received the following email:

I have never created any of those accounts. I have only created Checker Fred and Oolith. I have never sent emails to MuZemike, I only sent emails to some of the users here Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Sixth_season all of it, and Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Request_for_Comment_-_Splitting_seasons to give my imput on the issue, Since my school ip was blocked. When I did edit as Checker Fred, I did edit from shared ip address. I was however able to talk with Jabrona on tv.com and the iCarly wiki about this issue on Wikipedia. While talking to Jabrona I did explain to him some of the rules for the site and we have to go by what the site says. He still argured with me as what he is still doing to the other users on this issue. So I did wanted to get involved and try to help and solve this issue. Since it has been going on for years now. I only own and operated Checker Fred on Wikipedia and the iCalry wiki. I have not been to any other sites of related projects. I have no relation to Simulation12 and never created that account or any other acounts on Wikipedia besides Oolith and Checker Fred. I know creating User:Oolith was wrong, and fully promise to never engage in sockpuppetry again and to abide by wikipedia's guidelines. Before I sent this unblock request, I did ask another user on the icarly wiki to send MuZemike a message, whitch he did, but MuZemike never did send me a email, so I could explain what happened. I saw that MuZemike did reblock Checker Fred for what ever reason and I decided to talk to him. I know that Wikipedia is not a playground and needs to be respected in a reasonable mannor. I will be glad to answer any other questions you have or any other issues that may come up.

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking all over the place, but nowhere I can find that checkuser confirmed either Checker Fred or Oolith as a sockpuppet of simulation12. Now I can imagine that we prefer not to unblock because we do believe him to be a sockpuppet, or, seeing the scale of problems simulation12 has shown, we prefer just not to take the chance, but I'm still unsure if there is a checkuser confirmed as implied by the checkuser confirmed post by MuZeMike. Had I known of checkuser evidence, I wouldn't have brought it here , but simply referred to WP:BASC, who, when I mailed of the unblock request, suggested this AN thread. I did miss the trail to Fetch! With Ruff Ruffman, in which the history shows ongoing disruption by simulation socks, and took the last addition on the SPI for simulation12 as the last disruption. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As is noted several times in the SPI archives, sim12 is known to use a wide variety of IPs, so Cu is of limited use in this case. The behavioral evidence is sufficient to tie CheckerFred with Sim12, including the fact that he created six new accounts when it became clear he was about to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ban Aawjgnekr?

All right. I am posting here per an IP's suggestion over at ANI, since the ANI reporting attempt failed. Aawjgnekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing serious disruption to the project and after his indefinite block in 2010 as a vandalism-only account, he has created 47 sock puppets to date. He continually uses these to constantly harass other users and makes contradictory edits to our policies and guidelines and the violations of harrassment and personal attacks are a disgrace. Not to mention that he has participated in a campaign to create hoax and attack articles, as well as mis-nominating articles for speedy deletion. The user's ongoing abuse will no longer be tolerated any further, and therefore I propose a full site ban on Aawjgnekr. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aawjgnekr. Of course I would consider them de facto banned already, might as well formalize it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Might as well.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please create talk page

Please create Talk:Lost Nigger Gold Mine with {{WikiProject Mining}} and {{WikiProject Texas}}. Article should be classified and sorted, but page creation is disabled for anyone but admins. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Done (but not without a shiver at the title....) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• You and I both. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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

---

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if anyone cares to take that on. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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

This would appear to be a serious breach but I don't know how to proceed

Er, while clicking on the list of Category:People_educated_at_Haberdashers'_Aske's_Boys'_School I noticed that there was a userpage in the list,
User:Prosperoscell
how odd thought I? Click, click, a few checks, this appears to seriously contravene the WP:UP guidelines (even if the person is unaware of what they have done) per:

• "and encyclopedia articles should never link to any userspace pages."
• "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles,"

The article itself, sorry the userspace page, appears to violate wp:spip and so on, wasn't really sure where to go with this, help desk seems a bit weak as this seems to be OTT, couldn't decide if there was a CSD category to nominate it in, some Admin advice and action, please? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's userpage promotion, quite a common problem. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a serious problem, just a misunderstanding. We have categories for Wikipedians to use eg Category:Wikipedians by alma mater - I doubt it's obvious that this is a category intended for notable persons with articles. Just explain to him. Maybe he would like to create a userbox Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_Kingdom to credit his old school.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is common to see user pages in encyclopedia categories. I just edit them to comment out the categories. I mark as a minor edit and an edit comment like Don't include user pages in encyclopedic categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As Mike Featherstone already has an article (written by others), I've suggested he move content into that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

From the comments in the page someone is writing the text on his behalf which doesn't feel appropriate - clear COI. Secretlondon (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also here.User:Souvikmukherjee99 The existing article might have partially been copy-pasted from here.[6] A copy-vio? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the rapid reactions, I'll let you get on with it then ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Back again, did you take a look at Souvikmukherjee99 (talk · contribs) contributions? This is quite wierd as now the information appears once in mainspace and twice in userspace and the aforementioned user has only edited his userpage and the Featherstone article, okay not exactly the same article repeated three times, but the link to the Theory, Culture & Society journal appears three times, which happens to be a journal of which Mr Featherstone/Prosperocell is the editor-in-chief. The said article which is lacking in refs and (oh my brain boggles, too tired to check) perhaps notability. I will sleep on this and see what the outcome is on the morrow. Night. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki solicitation of vandalism

BBC presenter Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), who objects to Wikipedia having an article about him, is again calling for his Twitter followers to vandalise Wikipedia: http://twitter.com/jimallthetime/status/176677178199650304 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Unfortunately he's just advocating general disruption without specifying a target. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that it might be worthwhile for the WMF to get in touch with his employers (BBC Radio Shropshire), to point out that having their presenters advocating vandalism isn't exactly good for their image. I think the BBC tends to take a dim view of such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, it is actually Pigsonthewing who is being disruptive. He has an apparent fixation, ongoing since 2009, with including Jim Hawkins' birthdate-with the only source being Twitter- against thnobjections of the subject (involving OTRS complaints)[7] and against the consensus on BLPN [8] and on the talkpage of the article. Every year Pigsonthewing, trawls Hawkins's Twitter account for more evidence of birthday congratulations and tries to include the date201020112012 He has been repeatedly told by other editors and administrators to drop it.[9][10] [11][12]

BLP policy is clear: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hawkins has complained repeatedly - and while his calls for vandalism are foolish and he has not been particularly helpful in other ways - his reaction is pretty understandable at this point. Pigsonthewing needs to stop poking of the article subject, and I can pretty much guarantee so will the calls for vandalism will stop too. --Slp1 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

the subjects behaviour is not understandable to call for users to vandalise Wikipedia from an enployee of the BBC is totally wrong and the WMF should bring this up. . He is clearly notable. In regards to his age if that's his own twitter page then it clearly is his birthday however we do need better sources to allow inclusion. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, no, sourcing isn't the issue here at all. The subject himself has requested via OTRS that his date of birth be omitted form the article. That's the final arbiter of the matter, even if you go find a dozen iron-clad reliable sources that list his birth date. Apart from that, is there anything currently in the article that the subject objects to? Tarc (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Er no, the subject of a Wikipedia article does not have the final decision on what does and does not go into an article. The subject of an article can make the request; and that request should be taken into consideration. How notable is the person? Is the person a public figure or a lone individual who stumbled into notability? How relevant is the age? Does the person try to keep his/her age secret elsewhere? How relevant is keeping the age secret (some poeple have a professional reason to appear older/younger than they really are.) The request can then be considered, but it is not the final arbiter. (Lesser known individuals who are not public figures are more likely to be have such requests honored than major public figures.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Just reviewed the BLP policy, and birthday is one thing that can be requested removed regardless of notability.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The part of BLP you cite is immediately preceded by "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.". As has been repeatedly demonstrated, Hawkins has widely published and publicised his own birth-date. However, that - and your false accusations (sources other than Twitter - inlcuding the BBC - have been given) - are irrelevant to the issue raised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No- the BBC sources give only the year of birth, which is already in the article cited to these. Yhe only sources you have ever provided for the day and month, which you wish to include, are your deductions based on Twitterposts from him and others. But anyway this is moot per WP:DOB as repeatedly been explained. --Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering why people think this is about the birthdate. The birthdate has not been in the article since April 2010. GB fan 19:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Hawkins made the following comment on the talkpage just today "You are a sad, sad man, Mabbett. Do you really have nothing better to do than worry about my birthday?"[13]. AndyMabbettPigsonthewing then deleted it, as a personal attack.[14]--Slp1 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Without a specified target for the vandalism, there is nothing we can do about this except maybe urge more people to huggle or otherwise RCP. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

im very tempted as a member of the public who pays my bbc licence to wright to the NBC asking if the think his behaviour is appropriate to someone of his level of standing at the BBC. I doubt they will. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That twitter post is hardly a call for an army of destructive trolls, the BBC will probably ignore such a report. The guy dislikes having a wiukipedia Bio - he thinks its rubbish - he's a local radio host - low notability - get rid of it, give the guy a break, delete it. Hes a radio host in the afternoon on such a station - yes, everyone that needs to know that already knows it. The loss to the educational mission of the project through the deletiuon of this bio would be zero. Youreallycan 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already survived AFD twice. I certainly wouldn't give the argument to "give him a break" any weight whatsoever. Others have commented, and I tend to agree, that this appears to be more about the fact that this is a heavily trafficked website and he is not allowed to control the entry on himself. No resource with any integrity lets article subjects write their own entries, and I'm sure there are many criminals and other folks who would rather not have an entry, we can't let them dictate such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It might actually be worth sending the article to Articles for Deletion again. The last AfD was in 2009, and the keep arguments presented were fairly weak. There was quite a few claims of significant coverage in reliable third party sources, yet no sources were presented in the discussion. He has received quite a bit of coverage in BBC, but he works for the organization, so it is a primary source. Currently, there is only two non-BBC reliable sources in the article, and additional sourcing outside of BBC is fairly scarce. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree and maybe it is worth seeing what an AFD would decide now, but I think the Sony Radio award might make it a Keep. --Slp1 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all neither here nor there for purposes of this noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Gmbfj, User:Plusspacere, involved in edit war, probably sockpuppets

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere I believe are sockpuppet accounts of one user who is involved in an edit war at Allies of World War II. I added material that demonstrates that China during the war was divided between the Nationalist Government of the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-Shek, and Communist-controlled areas of China under Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist Party rejected the legitimacy of Chiang's Nationalist Party-led Republic of China. I even provided an image of the United States ambassador meeting with both Chiang and Mao, that I will show you here. I also added the flag used by the Communists in their controlled regions of China. User:Gmbfj removed the edits I made, including the image on the false accusation that what I added was "vandalism" and removed the picture containing both Chiang and Mao leaving a picture with only Chiang in it.[15]. I said that the edit was not vandalism and posted material in the talk page to address the concerns, then a few days later another user, User:Plusspacere, removed exactly the same material, saying "Restoring vandalism" - I assume the user meant "removing vandalism" - as can be viewed here: [16]. The two users removed exactly the same material, restored exactly the same material, and used exactly the same false claim that what I added was "vandalism", when really it appears that the user has a POV in favour of representing only Chiang Kai-shek and not Mao Zedong. The evidence above indicates abuse of multiple accounts through sockpuppetry.

What I added was not vandalism as accused by the user, and secondly the user is abusing user accounts through edit warring through sockpuppet accounts. I would like an investigation by administrators into abuse of multiple accounts through sockpuppetry involving the accounts of User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere and taking action to stop the edit-warring. Since this appears to be a case of abuse of multiple accounts combined with edit-warring, I suggest a topic ban on the article Allies of World War II for User:Gmbfj and User:Plusspacere.--R-41 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• For content disputes, see WP:DR. For sockpuppet investigations see WP:SPI. Although I agree your edits were not vandalism, the rest of this is really not an issue for this noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Adoption of new unblock appeals tool

Hello, all; an RFC has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Adoption_of_new_unblock_appeals_tool to seek input regarding the implementation of the Unblock Ticket Request System as a replacement for the unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org mailing list. Comments from all users, especially those who have experience in reviewing blocks, would be greatly appreciated. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Call for wider review of SPI case -help needed

Hello everyone. I would like to call your attention to this SPI case. Amalthea (and myself, to a much lesser extent) have uncovered a large group of accounts that seem to be connected. To sum up: There are two or more people in the same range making the same kind of edits, thousands of edits spread over those accounts, meticulously using one IP per account and switching/faking UAs, IPs from a hosting provider - this takes effort and money. Would any legit user, whose only intention is to improve Wikipedia, do that? There have been over 10,000 edits made by this group of accounts, but I'm at a loss to explain any of the whys, whats, or wherefores. As Amalthea says in the case, AGF breaks down when confronted with an operation on this scale. Since the results were posted, all of the accounts have gone silent. There would seem to be a couple of options here: Organize a review of all contributions (in a WP:CCI-style kind of way) or if the situation is deemed innocent, close it with no action. Other options and discussion would be welcome. TNXMan 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I read something about an anonymous (group) attempt to infiltrate/control the project. Not through vandalism but through creating a large number of good hand accounts all under their control. Youreallycan 15:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just find unbiased authors to write and edit and protect the NXIVM complex of articles they will do no harm. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless they have a decent explanation - I would block them all for sockpuppetry and be done with it. Youreallycan 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A block by itself does not solve anything, they stopped editing. Are you saying that the edits made by them do not need to be checked? Amalthea 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I checked a few of the accounts and didn't find anything to revert - more appeared to me to be the creation of multiple good hand accounts. Youreallycan 16:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that "the NXIVM complex of articles" was really a target of any non-neutral editing. I'm not convinced of anything here. Amalthea 15:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe that's because of the late date at which you got involved. Please check those users I listed for you earlier, U21980 and so on. You kind of came in in the middle of something that had been going on for some time. Look into it and you will see it clearly: this is NXIVM at work. The rest is red herring to throw you off the scent, mix a metaphor. For each username, I can find for you which edits were NXIVM-related. Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Then please do so, that would be very helpful. Thus far I can only speculate on motive, which makes attempting to clean this up (and even deciding whether it needs clean-up) very difficult. Amalthea 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
        • What you see above is them gearing up a little army of puppets that would look like real people. If you again would look at the list of previous encarnations that I showed you, you see a progression of increasing sophistication at doing this. The problem is, they were/are under the impression (JW didn't help) that "NPOV" applied to editors, not just edits, so they go to great lengths to hide their fan status and look like regular Wikipedians. First they put up user pages and tried to give each a personality, but they had to make it look as if they had real contribution histories and if to do that they needed automation. They aparently invented bots or some such that they thought would create an editor's history that would be belivable. These edits are mostly to orphan or near orphan articles and consist of mostly paragraph breaks and other 10 to twelve-bit "edits". I don't see why you feel they need clean-up. Except for Questionable Pulse, I can't see where any of these puppets was actually used to whitewash any article. Now this failed so they will have to think of another strategy. If you would just explain to them how they can maintain privacy yet still provide the "balance" they feel is needed on the articles they care about they wouldn't feel they have to create such elaborate ruses. Chrisrus (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The only other NXIVM-related article that I can find that Questionable Pulse and U21980 edited is Emiliano Salinas, who, along with some other Mexican elite such as Ana Cristina Fox, are known Raneire fans and "Espians" as NXIVM people call themselves. Again, the idea was to make Salinas look good and to promote another group for which KR is the "conceptual founder", "IN LAK' ECH". So that's the only other article in the "NXIVM complex of articles" that they edited as far as I know. I don't know if you or anyone else would necessarily object to those edits, so if no one feels they did any damage there then the only thing I see as needing "clean up" are the articles NXIVM, Keith Raniere, and maybe NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute (the decision means that we can tell our readers all about those internal NXIVM documents available at Ross's site even though we know about them from people who'd signed non-disclosure agreements), and there is some sign that recently some editors with some familiarity with the WP:RSes on the subject(s) are already restoring some balance there, but there's a long way to go and I again issue a plea for someone to get those article "right" as JW says. There is no reason I can see to suspect that all the kajillion other edits made by these usernames need reverting, as they seem to be either benign or meaningless, simply intended to give puppets a credible user history. You may have noticed something I haven't, but I see no reason to worry about that kind of edit they've made so many of. Chrisrus (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Did this group always register names or did they ever edit using IP addresses? I find it very odd that there are no IP addresses in these lists. Points to a very organized group - very worrying and I don't buy the "paranoid" explanation. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any anonymous editing (not saying it didn't happen, just that I don't know of any). They're using a hosting company's range to edit, so the IP info is limited. TNXMan 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Only very little anon editing on the range. Amalthea 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

they should all be blocked a constructive user wouldn't waste time or money. I appreciate it does not stop the wider problem as they have ceased editing but doing nothing as said at spi shouldn't be an option. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not to state the obvious but this is quite serious. I'd be inclined to a) block the range of the hosting company for 3 months and all the accounts indefinitely (a litte over reaction now is IMO preferable to inaction) - if there are any actual legitimate accounts they can/will appeal; b) put the NXIVM topic under probation (and maybe even protection for a week) and instigate the CCI style investigation--Cailil ^talk 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• It took me only a few minutes to discover that the editors in question obviously want to present a certain movement in a positive light. [17][18]. Whether their gnomish edits elsewhere were in good faith or not is not particularly relevant. Given the impracticality of topic banning an IP range, I think a range block is the only option here. The SPA improvement efforts have been going back for years [19] [20]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting three admins to close long RfC

This is a second request from four days ago. The RfC on Genesis creation narrative has now run its full 7 days, and we haven't received any new arguments for a while. The subject has been heavily contested in the past, so I agree with others who have called for a 3 admin close. If any impartial admin who hasn't taken part has the time, it would be appreciated. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the RM as no consensus, and it's already taken up further on the talk page. Two other admins are invited to participate, but I really don't see the call for three unless someone is trying to win- in which case, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Keegan (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not about winning. It's about establishing that this issue has been reviewed impartially by the community, not just one admin. This issue has come up again and again over the years... it's probably the single most discussed issue on the talk page, and it's an issue that editors on the page feel very strongly about, and which causes a good deal of drama. Having multiple admins review the discussion will calm some of that drama. I'd ask that we wait to close the discussion until other admins are given an opportunity to comment. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Jess, and my words were not aimed at anyone in particular. Here on Wikipedia it is very difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything. This is why it's about the threashhold for promotion on anything here. RfA, FAC, DYK, etc., cannot meet the standard. It should be noted that I did not close a request for comment, but a requested move, which is a different creature. Keegan (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You better stop posting comments Keegan, the PoV warriors are twisting anything you say to prove an abusive close... --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You might wish to get your facts straight; a 3 admin close was asked for BEFORE the closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the 3-admin close bit, i'm commenting on the bunch of users jumping on Keegan and accusing him of treating the debate as a vote or popularity content, despite him/her/it providing full rationale with the close of why it was no consensus. WP:AGF? --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Ten minutes ago you were referring to "Typical scumbag wikipedians". Also, considering the scale of the RfC it would be better for the admin summed up (in the text) the various arguments and then arrived at a conclusion of the state of concensus. Instead of merely stating that "There are strong arguments from both sides, but there is no common agreement or acquiescence.". He also needs to clarify why "Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant about 2/3 agreeing since it's not a vote, surely? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I took User:Keegan's statement on it being difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything, as being a response to User:Mann jess, the previous editor's remark about having "multiple admins review the discussion". In the light of his previous claims that his decision was not based on votes or popularity, I don't think the "2/3" thing had anything to do with the editors in conflict, but rather, had everything to do with the minimum 2 out of 3 members of a 3 admin close that needed to be in agreement. If one admin favors Keep, and a 2nd favors Move, and a third favors Neither, then there could be no close. A second uninvolved admin has appeared on the talk page after discussion agreeing the discussion was No Consensus, so requesting a third admin at this point is moot. By the way, I was not involved in the discussion, and am only now starting to get caught up on reading all the volumes of hot air discussion. --172.129.70.13 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you've already performed the close it seems unlikely that another admin is going to step in and overrule your decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from the talk page: With how contentious this issue is it should have been a three admin close. I requested as such at WP:AN though I did so prematurely and so that thread is now archived. Consensus is not supposed to be a tally of the votes but rather a consideration of the strength of the arguments in respect to how well they represent policy and, though I am obviously biased in the issue, I believe that a cursory reading of the !votes show a distinct lack of policy based argument on the side of opposition. I ask that you revert your close and that a three admin panel decide the issue. If that happens and there is still no consensus for a move I believe I can speak for those in support of the move that we will drop the issue, but if the fate of this page is to be decided by a single admin then I'm sorry but I don't think that that can happen. Furthermore, if there is no consensus for a move, then according to the policy WP:CCC this page must be moved to the title used by the first editor after the article was no longer a stub as the title here has been unstable and disputed for a very long time. Lastly, whether editors here think that "myth" or "narrative" is more encyclopedic seems irrelevant in the face of all the sources that non-contentiously use "creation myth" as the designated terminology. To let editor opinion sway the issue is an egregious violation of the very essence of NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One other point: you expressed an opinion on the talk page regarding a title and though it was neither narrative nor myth it's a gray area as to whether or not you're WP:INVOLVED at this point. I realize you were not involved previously, but the fact that you entered the discussion makes the situation murky. N^oformation ^Talk 10:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, Keegan is not "involved": "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Nobody Ent 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good close. Nobody Ent 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I second Ent. WP:AGF - as has been touted by the "move" side consistently in this case - is thrown out of the window when its implications are bad for the WP:BATTLEGROUND? Further comment: bad form. Trying to claim the (completely uninvolved) admin is now involved based on some technicality of where he typed a few words (to try to lessen the acrimonious nature of the entire proceeding by giving a WP:THIRDOPINION after the close strikes me as most egregious WP:WIKILAWYERING. Also, WP:NOTLAW. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Noone is doing anything other than assuming good faith. An individual can in good faith make a mistake, we are only human. It does not mean we ignore the issues. I suggest you read this section of AGF: Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. I do not see the relevance of your link to battleground. It seems noformation is pointing out that the admin choose to involve himself in the discussion of the naming after performing the close. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My citation of battleground has less to do with this specific admin, but to the warzone he got dragged in to when closing a request for move (not RfC) that already has plenty of entrenched warriors on both sides: I believe it is relevant, because it appears that mentality has carried over in to - nay, caused - this entire section. I don't think it's in bad faith - I think that Genesis creation narrative has been a battleground of POV-warriors for so long (years, reading the archives) it's now a razed warzone, everyone is shellshocked, and it's subconscious. (Hyperbole, of course, but I believe I've described my point.) When people start making socks (TCH & Zenkai) to prove their points, I think a battleground mentality has prevailed. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with John that Keegan was not involved at the time of the close. However, AGF is not in question here. I don't think anyone doubts that Keegan did his best to close the discussion properly and serve the best interests of the encyclopedia. Editors are claiming that, despite his best intentions, he made a mistake. I also don't see any battleground behavior, just users who feel that policy was not followed. I'd urge you to read over those pages again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're afraid you have to agree with me - chuckles </sarcasm>. Thank you for explaining the AGF issue, as I suppose, to me (who has not been involved in dispute resolution before) a debate over correct application of policy and assuming bad faith looked similar (at least on the talk page about the close). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't mean anything by that; it's just an expression ;)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since both you and Jess don't think that Keegan was involved I will defer to consensus and drop that matter. You are correct that that page is like a warzone, and closing that RM without a full rational and explanation of how each side applied to policy did not help. N^oformation ^Talk 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not speak to whether I think it was a "good close" in terms of the decision reached, but I do not think it was helpful to close the discussion unilaterally when 3 admins had been agreed upon. The goal of the RM was to come to a community decision and put the drama surrounding this discussion to rest. This close has had the opposite effect, stirring up additional controversy on its own. As such I don't believe it was a "good close" regardless of the decision. It's unlikely a second admin will take part now that Keegan has acted, which is why I asked him to revert his close and abide by the requested closure process. It seems he isn't willing to do that, which means this issue won't be settled, and the whole RM discussion was a waste.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You've provided a diff to a request for a 3 admin close but not evidence such agreement ever existed.Nobody Ent 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The 3 admin request was initially proposed in the RM discussion and supported by a few editors. No one opposed the idea. It was then requested at AN twice. For an admin to bypass that and unilaterally close the discussion, it would appear, he is doing so in opposition to the wishes of the community, which would seem unhelpful in trying to manage a contentious multi-year long dispute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You requested here, on a wider scale, but did not get consensus for 3 admin close. Nobody Ent 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. What community consensus are you referring to? Firm rules weren't established before the RM that 3 admins would be needed for a close, sure, but we're not a bureaucracy; every editor who commented on the issue before the close, both here and on the talk page, supported 3 admins. No one, anywhere, opposed it. It was not an unreasonable request, given the heated nature of the lengthy dispute, and ignoring it has only flared up tempers and caused the discussion to be further polarized. I don't think that's helpful to the encyclopedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That we would go for a 3 admin close was explicited stated as a seperate comment within the RfC discussion, 2 agreed (me and Dominus Vobisdu [21]) and noone objected, that was about 5 days ago. [22] IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning given for the close directly contradicts a Wikipedia policy that was thoroughly discussed in the RM. That their reasoning runs counter to Wikipedia policy is concerning in and of itself, and the comment that gives the impression that the RM was closed by a vote, not a consensus, adds to this concern. It is deeply concerning that the closing admin stated that "2/3 people to agree on anything" is "the threashhold for promotion on anything here." That the comment was made at all in regards to the closing of the RM is troubling, because the number of editors that comment should not play any factor in how a closing admin judges any consensus. Given that this faulty close is based on a reasoning that is clearly and specifically mentioned in a core Wikipedia policy (WP:RNPOV), this suggests that the closing admin was not able to properly assess the weight of the arguments presented, assuming that they did not close the RM based on a magic "2/3" number as they suggest.

I would recommend that the closing admin reverse his decision, and leave the RM to someone that is able to properly determine consensus based on Wikipedia policy, preferably the 3 admin close that was suggested. Even if the comment left by the closing admin was a mistake, that they understand the policy, the appearance of a lack of understanding that they presented irreparably destroys any appearance of credibility that the closing admin would have otherwise had. (The admin stated "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth" however the comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" which specifically mentions mythology as an example.) If the admin is unwilling to do this, then I suggest that this close by this admin be overturned, as the close itself was based on a reasoning that specifically runs counter Wikipedia policy. If this does not happen, the only result will be yet another RM that repeats the same information yet again, as this is a demonstrably faulty close, and the closing admin has provided reason to believe that the discussion was not properly assessed, and that weight of the arguments given was assessed without regard to Wikipedia policy. If the closing admin did properly close the discussion by determining consensus, then a 3 admin close will come to the same conclusion, with the added benefit of a confidence in the closing decision. - SudoGhost 17:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering that admin actions are as subject to community review as anything else and he's had multiple people ask that he reverse his close, one reason being that he didn't actually explain the closure, he should defer to this request and let this be handled by someone who understands the intricate policy issues involved. Admins should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and considering that he engaged in the conversation by offering an alternative solution before he closed, coupled with the comment regarding a 2/3rds majority, and then the lack of explanation, he should reverse and let this be done properly. If it's not done properly then this debate is just going to continue to wits end, so for the sake of the project please drop the ego and let someone more familiar with this side of WP deal with this. It's not a big deal, we're not on a WP:DEADLINE, and it's better that this be thoroughly vetted before being put to rest. Please allow a three admin panel to discuss and close this.

@Nobody ent: Whether his involvement is minor is subject to opinion but the fact is that before he closed the RM he became at least somewhat involved by offering an opinion on the matter, so he wasn't only acting as an admin at that point. N^oformation ^Talk 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Keegan appears to be treating this as a vote Diff: [23] The supporters feel that the move falls well within our policy on keeping a neutral point of view relating to religion; indeed the word mythology is mentioned there. However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory..

He appears to treat concensus as exactly a weighing up of numbers of votes: 'I'm not allowed to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes" because it the opinions of others in the discussion, not my own, that matter.. If he doesn't try to make objective judgements about the quality of arguments then all we are left with is a vote. This seems completely contrary to WP:CONCENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to post essentially the same thing as IRWolfie. I don't think Keegan realizes that he pretty much just admitted that he treated this issue as a vote but he did. He might not have simply done a tally of the votes to make a decision but he made it clear that he considered arguments that were totally out of line with policy in order to make his decision and thus this became a popularity contest. Admins are supposed to enforce policy as written and not make decisions based upon what convinces them personally. So what if Keegan or any other single admin is convinced of a given proposition? Admins aren't asked to close because their opinion on the policy/subject matter is important, admins are supposed to be neutral parties that determine whether arguments are in line with policy or not, and then to enforce the policy that has been determined by community consensus. Keegan didn't do that here, he overstepped his bounds as an admin by using his position to make a close that contradicted not just a number of minor policies but a core pillar. N^oformation ^Talk 00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Twisting words to fit a point. I can respect that.

My point was the shared opinion that RNPOV does not have to apply to the naming of this article, and suggestions that academically this is not settled as a myth by definition. Policies like this naming convention are not hard, fast rules that must be obeyed on every single article and, conveniently, they fit your opinion. Users in the discussion disagree with your application of policy on this page, and they have the right to battle you and not have a policy shoved down their thoat. It's not numbers at all. It's accepting that people disagree with you and have relevant context to disagree. If you read the discussion, you'll find that several users raised other policy points and reference to whether the term myth is common place among academics. I notice that most of these points were not argued with in the discussion. There was no consensus. If the three of you would like to continue on about the close feel free to do so, but I suggest a break from the conversation might be helpful. Consensus is broadly founded on respecting others' opinions before setting on argument, and I'm finding little of that good faith here. Keegan (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was argued that academically this term is used non-contentiously by an absolute majority of the source and it was pointed out that those who refuse to use the term tend to come from an apologetic Christian POV. Most of those arguments didn't even start coming in until the issue was posted to WP:CHRISTIANITY. This again demonstrates that you don't understand this issue well enough to close the RM. Do you know this subject? Have you read the sources? I'll say it again: the independent sources refer to Genesis as a creation myth non-contentiously. It appears that the only academic environment in which is contentious to call a story about a talking snake a creation myth is Wikipedia because at a university it would not be a problematic statement. If you followed the arguments as well as you claimed you would have noticed that there was capitulation on the opposing side that creation myth was the correct academic term but that we shouldn't use it anyway. Right now we are not following independent academic sources, we are following Christian apologetic sources. N^oformation ^Talk 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is not numbers at all. then why do you refer to However, a vast number of the opposition .... This gives the very strong impression that the number of people swayed you. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• This precedent effectively means that the word "myth" can now no longer be used in Wikipedia (since assumedly all other religions will now also oppose to have their stories labeled with this word (and actually for the sake of NPOV they shouldn't be called myth if Christianity's myths aren't called that)) with no regard to the number of scholarly sources that use the word. Religious fanaticism won the day, and we moved one step closer to conservapedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nah. It would be sanctimonious of me. Edit as you please. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I think that reads as sarcastic but it was humor. Admins should read discussions for closure, deletion debates, deletion requests, etc., case by case. It's the reason things like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST are there. This isn't a precedent for future closings. Things here have gotten melodramatic in that regard. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we might do well to spend as much effort on the content of an article as we have spent on its title, let alone on a meta-discussion about the way of deciding on a title. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Precedent is a legal term and not applicable to dispute resolution process. Keegan's evaluation of consensus is not binding on other admins evaluating consensus in other instances. Nobody Ent 02:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know precedent is also not binding in the legal system, but it stands to reason that both people who will close RfC's and people who would start them would take into consideration previous outcomes of comparable high profile cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Binding? No. Is it possible that this decision will embolden other admins to eschew policy for editor opinion? Certainly. If he can get away with doing it then other admins can too. N^oformation ^Talk 02:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Precedent" is an English word, not simply used in the legal system: think of "an unprecedented event." In the US legal system, a precedent may not be, strictly speaking, "binding", but a judge who constantly ignored precedent wouldn't last long on the bench. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It also seems very odd that the admin refuses to give a full rationale: [24]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially when the closing admin made references to a discussion that did not take place in the RM ("but it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth, which is what the discussion pointed out.") and is contradicted by WP:NPOV. To my knowledge, no one other than the closing admin made a comment in the RM that neither narrative or myth should not be used, the discussion was rather which should be used. The closing admin was the only one to made these statements, and then closed it based on this statement. The closing admin made references to a discussion that did not occur, and stated that "to get 2/3 people to agree on anything is...about the threashhold for promotion on anything here." This was a discussion, not a popularity contest, and the admin's comments show a lack of understanding on this point. That the closing admin refuses to clarify this or discuss it further reinforces the fact that this admin should not have closed this RM. If an admin is going to close an RM, they should at least summarize the views expressed at least half-way correctly, make half an effort to provide a clarification when requested (especially in an RM as long as this one), and avoid giving any appearance of a "popularity contest" close. If those three things had occurred, I would have no issue here. The closing admin, however, failed to do these very simple things. - SudoGhost 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, you might not like his answer, but Keegan didn't "refuse to give a full rationale." You might not be satisfied with his rationale, but that does not mean he has to expound further until you're satisfied. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Back off the Hammer

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.

RfC opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TenPoundHammer Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

---

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is well-known for his huge count of edits. Most of these are deletions: either blocks of content, or articles. The article deletions are getting out of hand and are based on an increasingly dubious interpretation of policy. This post is as a result of this WP:CSD#G1 List of most highly populated countries, a 30k article with > 60 references. I make no comment on the quality, suitability or future deletion of this article - which is now at AfD. In fact, I've past history with the article's creator (this is how I saw the speedy notice) and I've called for many of their additions to be deleted on quality grounds myself. What is clear though is that articles of this size, on ostensibly appropriate topics, are not suitable for speedy deletion. They're just too complicated to judge so expeditiously. In this case, it's not only a speedy but a G1 as "patent nonsense". To quote the last summary point of that rationale, "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." There is no way that G1 can be applied to this article, even if we choose to delete it very soon. Nor is this a new editor who might not understand such things.

This editor calls to delete what looks like an article a day. We have no limits on such, there is no good reason to have one - a valid deletion is a valid deletion. Yet looking at this vast list (which I admit, isn't easy) they're an unedifying stream of dubious judgement.

• WP:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band) (German heavy metal) seems to have been based on searching Gnews (relevance?) by one very common word and not finding the wheat for the chaff, thus claiming that no sources exist. It took me two minutes, and using a band member's name, to find sources. Perhaps WP:BEFORE was indeed followed, but in that case the Hammer's google-fu is clearly weak. There's also a mis-use of WP:BAND#1 to claim that interviews (any and all of them) are not sources, despite what WP:BAND#cite_note-selfpromo-0 actually states. We also see claims like, "If the band's article is deleted, the albums can be speedied via A9." I would remind the editor that the function of an encyclopedia is not to act as a score-keeping mechanism for how many articles an editor can manage to have deleted.
• WP:Articles for deletion/Xargs seems to be a clear case of "If I don't understand the topic, it's not notable". Nor is "xargs" a terribly difficult word to search for.
• WP:Articles for deletion/List of April Fool's Day jokes (2nd nomination) was one I expected to be a clear deletion as listcruft. Yet it's not - it's quite reasonably sourced (for most items at least) and even if we pruned heavily, there is obviously a list there of large-scale incidents with clear secondary coverage.

Does it matter? After all, the barrage of keeps for April Fool's Day shows the robustness of WP in action. Yes, it does matter - because for everything that happens openly at AfD, there are others like WP:Articles for deletion/Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton that happen "under the hood" and invisibly. In this case, a speedy deletion was applied to an article already at AfD just hours after that AfD and with no time for any secondary discussion. Should that article have been kept? I would argue that its deletion was primarily WP:BITEy, where a new editor has created St Pauls, Clifton, Bristol (itself targeted for deletion) and because they created what should have been sections of an article as separate articles, these were deleted (and deleted rather than the rather more obvious merge). WMF tell us regularly that new editors should be encouraged, and this sort of response does nothing to encourage that. Incidentally, there are few Victorian churches in affluent areas that aren't notable, just on their architectural merits and the coverage that inevitably generates.

I'm bringing this to AN because RFC/U is both complex and toothless, but also because of the volumes involved. I consider that TenPoundHammer is acting outside of generally supportable behaviour, either through policy or consensus, and that because of the volume involved this requires a substantial and speedy response. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this doesn't require "a speedy response." If it did, ANI would be the more appropriate venue anyway. TPH is one of our more prolific deletionists, but so far that hasn't been a bad thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TL;DR 76.118.180.210 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, AN is not a place for dispute resolution. I'm sorry you have no faith in our established systems such as RFCU, (despite your claims some real changes have come out of some of those discussions) but that doesn't mean you get to use this board for whatever purpose you want it to serve. This is obviously not an issue "affecting administrators generally " and should not be here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good point, RFC/U has in my experience produced useful results and is clearly the most appropriate venue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• What they said. I won't disagree that I did make a couple mistakes here, but filibustering at ANI won't get you anywhere. There's nothing an admin here can do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton article, Jimfbleak does quite a few out of policy speedy deletes. I have merged content to St Pauls, Clifton, Bristol. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps he needs to comment here. Admins are supposed to be the line of defense against improper deletions. I have notified him. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U is that way. Seriously. If it is that much of a problem getting a RfC/U certified. Even if TPH doesn't respond that's just fine, because the more advanced (and binding) forms of Dispute resolution really expect that a RfC/U has already commenced and the conduct has not improved since that point. Hasteur (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes a discussion here or at AN/I is a good substitute. The relevant policy is NOT BURO. In this particular matter, a number of TPM's more questionable speedies have been deleted by Jimfbleak, so perhaps this would be a good place to discuss it . not as a dispute, but a problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, unless administrative action or some form of topic ban is likely, many people will not bother to discuss it here. So I'm not sure that's accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here. I suppose there are three points. Firstly, the fact that an article is at AfD or prodded does not, I think, automatically preclude SD, the most obvious example being where the text is copyright. Secondly, I admit that on the windows article I may have been over zealous, I'll try to be more careful in future. Thirdly, I always respond to all but the most abusive postings on my talk page (or email) to explain why I have deleted an article, and to review my decision if necessary. What I cannot do is is get other editors to raise issues with me first, instead of going straight to this page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Then we should give 24 hour blocks to anyone who files an ANI without trying to resolve the issue directly with the other editor, and 12 hour ones for anyone who fails to notify a user they have reported :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion is the wrong way around. There's almost nothing on User talk:TenPoundHammer and lots of text on this noticeboard. It should be the converse. I say this as one of the participants in Project:Articles for deletion/Xargs. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There are several discussions on TPH's talk page related to inappropriate CSD, PROD and AFD nominations:
    • User talk:TenPoundHammer#speedy
    • User talk:TenPoundHammer#Inappropriate rationales in AfD Nominations
    • User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD
    • etc...
  • —Ruud 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't the right place, we're being too hard on the user here. TPH's use of "filibustering" is particularly egregious, but really the time taken to put this all together (with diffs even) should be given a little more respect. And "Too long, Didn't read" is appalling. If you're not here to read and think a little bit before chipping in, then why are you here? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• ANI could be proper I guess... but TPH has such a huge list of edits it's pretty damn easy to cherry pick out a few CSDs and run with it. Is he being disruptive? Not from anything I've seen here. I don't agree with that speedy, or even an AfD (by someone else btw) in the examples, but that doesn't mean TPH is doing anything there that indicates the need for admin action. I suggest this conversation be closed, lest it become some proxy war over inclusionism/deletionism. Shadowjams (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are two problems with anybody doing too much deletion or patrolling. Fist, there's a great temptation to go too fast and get careless. The other, which applies to even those like myself who are in general inclusionsts, is there is so much spam and nonsense that the attitude starts to change from "what can be rescued" to "what can be deleted."

and TPH s indeed doing something that needs admin attention. He is causing us excessive work in correcting the mistaken deletion notices. But much worse, he is notifying new users that their articles are unacceptable when this is not the case. Most people who get such notices never return to us, and the maintenance of WP depends or our at least being able to replace the editors who inevitably leave. He is thus having a negative effect here. If he went slower, others could do the patrolling , but nobody can compensate for the editors he loses us. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TenPoundHammer Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Right. Now that an RFC/U is open, are we done here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock request for User:TrEeMaNsHoE

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Proposed unban/unblock of User:TrEeMaNsHoE was bot-archived a couple of days back (though I have not been on-wiki during that time), but there was a unanimous agreement to lift the ban on User:TrEeMaNsHoE. If another admin would like to unblock at earliest convenience, that would be great. --MuZemike 17:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox said "conflicted" and Crossmr "oppose". That's closer to "lukewarm", not "unanimous" 91.125.155.37 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, then. I will restore the entire discussion below. --MuZemike 19:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 19:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Community ban for Papa Smooch

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.

---

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

The socks say it all. I was going to just tag it as de facto, but let's formalize it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Also, is there any connection to Feathers Trial (talk · contribs)/Barackbush (talk · contribs)? HurricaneFanAlt ≈≈ (bad revert?) 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Abusively using this many accounts warrants a ban from the project. dci | TALK 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• I support this as a simple matter of principle. TheRealTeln (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed unban/unblock of User:TrEeMaNsHoE

• TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
• Ban proposal: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Ban of User:TrEeMaNsHoE?

I received this email yesterday from banned user User:TrEeMaNsHoE (copied below with permission from TrEeMaNsHoE):

Dear User: MuZemike,

I am User: TrEeMaNsHoE. I was emailing you to request that my indefinate block be uplifted. I was blocked in November 2009 for participating in sockpuppetry. At the time, I did not know it was wrong, however was having trouble expressing myself and my talkpage was thus revoked. I continued to open new accounts, because I thought that if I was using one it would be okay. Now, I know that what I had been doing was wrong, and fully promise to never engage in sockpuppetry again and to abide by wikipedia's guidelines. In September 2011, I was told that if I refrained from socking for six months, my unblocking would be re-reviewed. If unblocked, I promise to use this and only this account, and look forward to editing and learning new things from the wikipedia experience. Thank you for your time,

User: TrEeMaNsHoE

Currently, he hasn't been causing any additional abuse that has led to his ban for at least over a year. I prefer not to unblock without community discussion since the ban back in 2009 was established by community consensus. I will jump out and say that I support an unban and unblock. Thoughts? --MuZemike 23:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Conflicted Because I am generally a big believer in second chances, but this user already had theirs and spit in the faces of those (including me) who gave it to them. See the page history of User talk:PlannerPenBackpack. I extended WP:OFFER to this user, to give them a chance to prove they could reform, and they made it less than a week before being caught socking again. Just going away doesn't prove they can be a productive member of the community here, although I'll grant it's a start. I'm just not sure we can trust this user after so many lies in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cautious Support per MuZemike. I can understand Beeblebrox's concerns, however it's been more than 2 years since the "OFFER", and it seems that this user has not misbehaved in quite some time. Those who know me realize that I am much more for bringing people in to the project, than I am for pushing them out. I'll also add that a couple years can bring a world of difference to a person's outlook on things - especially in cases of younger folks. People do change, and I think we should give them a chance to. If they misbehave again - the block button isn't all that far away. — Ched :  ?  02:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as he has to stick to the TrEeMaNsHoE account and with the understanding that any further socking will result in immediate siteban reinstatement. Night Ranger (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Ched, yes, the OFFER incident was two years ago. In the intervening time Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TrEeMaNsHoE/Archive filled up with fifteen more reports, almost all of which uncovered multiple socks, the most recent bout being in September. I could see how it may be seen to be implied in my remarks that this is a stale issue, but really I just mentioned it as an example of the outright dishonesty this user has exhibited again and again. If we are even going to consider this it should be with not only a "sudden death" restriction on operating multiple accounts for any reason, but also a full topic ban from the areas where this user caused problems to begin with. That would be any article related to Ciara, construed as broadly as possible, and if I recall correctly, any edit to sales figures by any recording artist. Possible additional restrictions would be a requirement to provide a reliable source with any and all substantive edits regardless of subject and a requirement that they have a mentor with whom they will consult before making any edit more substantial than a typo correction. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point Beebs - I changed to "cautious" and put their talk on my watchlist in case they do succeed in returning. I looked through edit history, block log, contibs etc. I think they may want to contribute, and got rebellious when things didn't go their way. In the end, it's been about 6 months since that IP socking (class A network, so I'm guessing just rebooted the router, or power outage to get that other IP). If they stick to article space, contribute constructively - personally I'm willing to give them a chance - but I'm only one voice here, and you do have a good point - so I certainly understand your hesitation on this one. — Ched :  ?  04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• oppose unblock, too many socks. support uplifting the block. Block you're doing a fantastic job, keep it up!--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cautious Support - Per MuZemike and Ched with a understanding of Beeblebrox's concerns. (Also have talk page on watchlist) Mlpearc (powwow) 05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support MuZemike's proposed unblock, with preemptive support for a reblock if TrEeMaNsHoE abuses or misuses the second chance we're giving him. 28bytes (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Relisting discussion, which was prematurely bot-archived. --MuZemike 19:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - user has already been given chances. I see nothing to convince me they will stop socking. → ROUX ₪ 19:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question Didn't we just have an unblock discussion for this user a week or two ago? Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Oops, now I see MuZemike's comment about unarchiving. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would really like to see preconditions, including a topic ban from editing in the areas where they have caused so much trouble in the past. Mike, since you have had contact with them perhaps you could see if they would agree to some voluntary restrictions? I already laid out what those might be in my remarks above. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Steven Rubenstein

[25], Steven Rubenstein, is I believe user:Slrubenstein - if so I must regretfully report that there are credible reports of his decease. Details are sketchy right now but anyone who knows Steven is requested to contact his friend Greg Ruf, I can pass on any messages but please use email not my talk page. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who has just seen this, there is information on his Facebook page, reported by his friend Greg Ruf, who has left his contact details there. Unfortunately, it does seem to be credible. It is very recent, and there are no details yet. It is devastating. Steve was a great Wikipedian and a wonderful human being. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What, no! Fuck! I just talked to him last week. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, it doesn't seem possible. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is such sad news...Steve was such a great person..he will be missed!! Dreadstar ☥ 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a big shock. I can only echo what Magnus and others have written. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sad news indeed. He will truly be missed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm hesitant to divert this thread from condolences and expressions of sadness, but if we're satisfied that Steven is indeed sadly deceased, is it time to implement the procedures at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines? According to that guideline, we should remove his admin rights and fully protect his userpage, possibly with a note explaining that he is deceased. Perhaps somebody who knew him would like to write something tasteful, and the page can be left unprotected for a few hours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I just posted over at WP:BN to ask for a crat to deal with the admin tools, I agree the rest of it should be left to users who knew him best and/or are familiar with what his family would want. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done My sympathies to his family. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's terrible, a blow to us all. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection bit of a backlog

Did a few but have to attend to RL chores.....go for it someone. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Backlog cleared. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

possible violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy specifically WP:MASSCREATION

Please see Special:Contributions/M.casanova mass creating film pages all with content directly copied from [26] with most having no indications of notability, other than inclusion in this particular database. Will notify right after this Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no violation, he is neither a bot nor is he creating copyright violations due to the disclaimer at the bottom "This work by FCAT Festival de Cine Africano de Tarifa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." and he is crediting them in his creation of articles. I endorse his creation of articles on African films which are poorly covered, but I would like to see a few more sources adde dto them. I think a discussion would have been more productive first before a mass AFD you've now gone for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming copyright violation, I saw the release. That being said, I do question the value of an article which is 100% copied from another site. We do not need to be a database of african films,- obviously such a database already exists to be copied from. We have had the discussion before regarding how automated one needs to be before even manual action is encroaching upon the masscreation policy. Regarding the discussion, it started somewwhat organically, as I was doing new page patrol, doing individual nominations. When I noticed a large number of similar articles, I moved to this venue. I think "mass delete" is somewhat of a judgement call considering the incredibly massive number of articles created by this user using this process. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

African films are very poorly covered on wikipedia. However many he creates its likely to still pale in comparison to our coverage of US/UK films. I believe he is addressing systemtic bias, but his articles ideally need another source or two to prove notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that any film which can have 2 or 3 sources found would meet the notability requirements (and I would perhaps allow for lesser sources considering average state of african press etc.) However, the systematic bias in this case I think is largely a reflection of systematic bias in the media. While lack of coverage of African films by the press and awards may certainly be a real issues, it cannot be wikipedias place to fix that issue. We have notability standards, content which does not meet those standards should not be in. In our earlier debates regarding your mass creation of articles, you used the argument that natural locations, villages, etc were inherently notable - an argument I reluctantly acceded to. However, we have very clear criteria of what makes a film notable, and if we ignore those criteria for this instance we might as well delete all such policies and let everyone greate an article about their high school band, or in the examples you provided in our earlier discussion - about every pokemon char, episode of American tv, or character etc, . Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any previous discussion as its been a very long time since I mass created anything. I don't believe in inherent notability, but I believe certain traditionally encyclopedic topics almost always certainly meet requirements for an encyclopedia and the vast majority can be expanded and sourced, I have a 99.9% success rate with AFDs thrown at me and proved this. Films are not really traditional encyclopedic subjects so the notability at times may be questionable. I haven't researched the series of films the editor has created, but the screening at a major African festival at least is something in terms of assessing notability. I think you'll find a few of them maybe can be expanded using other sources. Why not ask the editor to try to expand a few with other sources?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is really an Admin issue (at least not anymore) but since this is the place designated for discussion, I'd like to echo Dr. Blofeld's suggestion that rather than lots of AfDs right now, a more constructive route here would be to withdraw the AfDs for the time being and meanwhile suggest to M.casanova that he might slow down a bit on the creation of new articles, and spend some of that time on additional sourcing for each article. I took a look at one of them, a Mozambican film, and I was finding some possible references in Portuguese, complicated further because the film seemed to have several different titles. It's unquestionably the case that African film is underdocumented, so I have to think that what M.casanova is trying to do here could be a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an admin issue... there's policy violation going on here... maybe no need for some sanction but it's appropriate at WP:AN. Shadowjams (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

These all look like valid articles in an area that's not very well covered. Endorse the point about slowing down and taking a bit more time to establish notability so we don't end back here. Lugnuts (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, slow down. Let's at least give a feigned tribute to the virtue of quality as a complement to quantity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a mass creation policy and whether you wrote a perl script to do it or you're fast with copy-paste, this is in a semi-automated fashion and the bot policy should apply. We have that policy so that these sorts of mass creations are preemptively examined because when they're wrong (or even if they're right) they create more work and trouble for everybody else. This isn't a question of notability so much as it is having a workable system.

I'm not so sure that these creations deserve a block... although I do think there's some policy violation going on here. I also don't think Blofeld's response addresses the real issue. Even if this is an under-represented area of the encyclopedia, mass creations that are copied from a source or otherwise generated in some automated way, are semi-automated for purposes of the bot policy. The subsequent edits appear to be automated as well, though I'm not sure. Shadowjams (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I picked one of them, La Robe du temps, and pumped it up a bit. I did not find much critical commentary, but certainly it has been noted by various independent sources. My guess is that almost all of the films featured at the African Film Festival of Cordoba are in fact notable. The articles just need a bit of work. I fully concur with Arxiloxos - the AfD's should be cancelled, since they show lack of prior research. M.casanova should slow down a bit and improve the existing entries before making more, but no harm is being done. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I note without comment that several of the articles have .fr and .es equivalents started by the same editor. I see no significant comments in .es but some discussion about the FCAT license and about failure to respond to warnings in fr:Discussion utilisateur:M.casanova. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy/pasting is definitely not a semi-automated policy; you have to do all of the work yourself. There is no good reason to complain about this series of article creations unless you object to the content itself. I understand the issues with lack of sourcing; I'm not addressing that at all because I'm not sure what to think about it. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to point out the wonderful work done by Aymatth2 on La Robe, clearly indicating the notability of that film. I have withdrawn the AFD nomination for that particular film. However, I think that example proves my point - There is such a thing as a provably notable african documentary, which meets our RS/V/Notability/NFilm standards. The ones that do not meet that standard should not be being created. Especially not 1000s at a time with no original content being provided. Wikipedia is not a directory. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• From my pov, African cinema is a neglected area where we do need to improve coverage, but that the creator of these stubs is strongly encouraged to spend some time finding other sources for the films, independent of the festival website. Gaijin42 and others are of course free to continue to tag articles for notability or nominate them for deletion if he wishes, but I would ask that he do the necessary WP:BEFORE work prior to doing so. As for me, I'll add some sources , when I have the time. There is a finite number of films selected to this or any festival, and I imagine some of films already have articles. I wonder how big an impact this is actually going to have? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A follow up note: I've looked through a handful number of the nominated articles and most, so far, many are easily referenced though a combination of Google Search and Translate, with bona fide foreign language RS. The deletion nominations by Gaijin42 appear to me to show a lack of WP:BEFORE work, in the cases I've looked at. I think the mass deletion nomination is more disruptive than the creation of the articles and I ask that these deletions please cease until the matter is settled. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping through an entire range

We've recently had an editor start adding unsourced musical equipment trivia to articles related to The Beatles. He IP hops for each edit - sometimes even within the same article: [27], [28].

He is also edit warring: [29], [30], [31], [32]. Radiopathy •talk• 15:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears the ISP functions to "promote interoperability for wireless data subscribers" so it could be a coffee house or something. You might want to get the high-profile Harrison article semi'd for awhile at WP:RFPP due to the on-going warring, but if their other edits are over a wide range of song articles, you're probably stuck playing whack-a-mole for now -- unless an admin determines a range block is feasible. For anyone curious, these IPs geolocate to the US, so it isn't the Russian EL spammer. Rgrds. --64.85.221.180 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe AT&T's 3G IP addresses are in 166.*.*.* blocks. Also, my roommate's Verizon LTE phone gets something out of a VZW IP block when it's on 3G, but a WDSPco block when it's on 4G.~Crazytales (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone going to actually address this? Radiopathy •talk• 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are all the recent anonymous edits from 166.182.3.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). I would be tempted to block this /24 range for a month but would like some assurance that these are all bad edits. Those knowledgable about the topic might confirm that fact. The very rapid cycling of addresses (never the same twice, even two minutes later) while they remain focused just on famous musicians suggests the person is not editing in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the difs after my post above which states, "He's also edit warring", you should see that not all of his edits are in good faith. Secondly, most of the personnel sections of The Beatles's song articles, which he had been adding instruments to, are already sourced, and any additions need to be discussed and likewise cited; this is not being done. Radiopathy •talk• 23:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the networking setup of the provider, the editor themselves may not be in control of this hopping. It could be a proxying system with multiple servers and load balancing, sending each request through the most lightly loaded server at the moment of the request. In fact, it would be rather technically difficult to force such rapid IP changes from the user's end. Yworo (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would likely be difficult for the end user to force rapid IP changes, but also note that most load balancers make some attempt to take the same route from a particular source to a particular destination for a certain amount of time, precisely because IP changes tend to break Web applications' sessions, particularly webmail applications. — madman 01:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since IPs from this range continued with the same type of editing on 13 March, I went ahead with the /24 block as proposed. A large volume of unsourced changes to articles about musicians by a fluctuating IP. Other admins may lift or modify this block as they think best. Let me know if you see IPs from outside this range continuing in a similar way on Beatles-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron

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

'This is just a notification of an RFC. If you wish to participate, do so at theRFC itself. If you wish to comment on the process, do so at the RFC's talk page. If you want to make snide remarks about particpants from either side of this conflict, do it off-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, I closed an AN discussion here at WP:AN related to the Article Resce Squad and User:The Devil's Advocate. The AN discussion indicated a desire to have an RfC related to the issue, which became the foundation for my closure---namely that one get started. I initially gave TDA a week to get it started, but he asked for an extension and I granted it. So here it is. Feel free to join in on the discussion.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh god.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

lol, see this: "Not that you care to hear my opinion (or anyone else's, I think), but if you want to file an RfC that has a remote chance of not getting laughed out of court, you might make this an RfC/U on Northamerica. The rest is just a bunch of baloney. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)" -- DA never responded to it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Milowent, I know you are involved with ARS and are critical of TDA, but is this type of ad-hominem post really necessary?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I'm responding to my mother here: no, no, no, but ..... errr ummm whatever i'm sorry--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, wait, hold on. I don't have nearly enough popcorn for this. → ROUX ₪ 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• I see - we need an entire RFC now, do we, to confirm what everyone already knows - general idea of ARS = good, behaviour of small number of ARS members = bad. It's not bloody rocket science. Or perhaps on Wikipedia, it is? Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Round up the usual suspects. (Sorry, couldn't resist). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• One might question the fitness of an administrator who is under sanction. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia...

closed - see topbox of this page for what it's for

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

...in 18 comic frames, courtesy of Randall Munroe: [33] Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It must be the problem, because it makes no sense to me whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.explainxkcd.com/. Resolute 00:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Problems; often discussed, sometimes patched, rarely solved. Tarc (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Propose removal of topic ban of Tom harrison

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.

The restriction is overturned. NW (Talk) 12:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Administrator Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned indefinitely over comments he made on 9/11 conspiracy theories under the findings of the arbcom ruling Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Standard discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Purpose of Wikipedia (specifically use of the site for advocacy or propaganda). The user making the complaint is The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and is well known among many noticeboards as well as an inclusionist for many unreliable conspiracy theories within 9/11 articles. His complaint against a well respected and established administrator was sustained. The primary administrator that proposed the ban has since relinquished his admin tools under a cloud related to this issue [34]. he has said his decision should not be permanent [35]. An affirming administrator seems to base the premise on a permanent ban on whether a sourced statement is accurate [36]. The source is Conspiracy theories and Secret Societies for Dummies, pg 95-96 and was provided by Tom. Israeli and specifically Jewish conspiratorial involvement in 9/11 and many other negative historical events is widely sourced and practically the prevailing viewpoint in the non-Israel countries in the middle east. The arbcom decision section cited was to prevent original research and unreliably sourced conspiracy theories from being included in mainstream articles on 9/11 articles. There is quite a bit of difference in saying that "9/11 was caused by Bush and the Jews" (poorly sourced and original research) and "Their is a widely held belief in middle eastern countries that Jews were involved in 9/11." (very well sourced and documented). Exploring and explaining why and how those beliefs evolved using sources is not a violation of the Arbcom decision on conspiracy theories. Indeed the basis for the Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) reads more like he is disputing the wording of well-sourced content and not finding that the principles of the arbitration decision were violated.

Furthermore, prior to the implementation of a topic ban require "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." The uninvolved admin doesn't appear to have warned Tom that he believed his edits may be in violation of the arbcom decision. If he was relying on the warning of an editor with the the history of The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), his interpretation of the sanctions portion of the decision is severely lacking. It stands to reason that the intent of naming an uninvolved admin AND requiring a warning is to put an editor on notice that a neutral party finds their edits objectionable. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. There is no indication that Tom knew or should have known that uninvolved administrators would find his content to be objectively flawed when the only prior complaint comes from a problematic editor with a history of POV pushing. Indeed the lack of a specific warning by the banning admin violatestes the discrtionary sanction policy and the topic ban should have been vacated immediately. The bottom line, though, is that after 30 days, Tom has not challenged this decision and graciously accepted it, even in it's fundamental unfairness and the cloud under which the blocking admin resigned. The topic ban was applied outside the scope of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions and the admin community should reduce this topic ban to the thirty days time served. Such a remedy is even supported by the initial complainant [37] and is in the best interest of the project. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of protocol, is there a reason why this can't be handled through the prescribed venue of WP:AE? (See the general instructions for discretionary sanctions.)

As a practical matter, is there a reason why Tom Harrison isn't participating in this appeal? Unless there's been some off-wiki communication, as far as I can tell his only involvement has been the notice on his talk page that the appeal was filed on his behalf. While I don't have any doubts about DHeyward's good faith, I do know that these sorts of third-party surprise interventions tend not to run very smoothly.

As a stylistic matter, the appeal could really use some whitespace. The big wall-o-text is rather daunting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was able to read DHeywards comments in less than a minute. Firstly...AE doesn't get as many responses as here. Secondly, Tom Harrison has worked on 9/11 related articles for 7 years and has made thousands of edits to them...the "indefinite ban" applied here was based on a few edits that weren't vandalism, weren't inaccurate and weren't unsourced to reliable sources. The only question here is whether Tom could have worded the items better. Lastly, my take on Tom is that he has no intention of apologizing for his edits...I wouldn't either...why would anyone plead for clemency over this? What, so they can be given the right to resume the thankless task of dealing with POV pushers? The issue here is the preposterously applied topic ban and the even more ridiculous "indefinite" term of it. I would have to say this is akin to sending someone to prison for jaywalking.MONGO 08:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The [38] instructions for overturning another admins action such as a decision to topic ban says to bring it to AN or ANI. It's 30 days so hardly an "incident" so I brought it here. The blocking admin no longer seems to participate so this appears to be the forum for undoing another admins actions as it says in the AE page. As an aside, there has been no off-wiki communication. I became aware of the "topic ban" and was essentially floored. I rarely edit Wikipedia because it seems fighting for things like this seem to become the main point instead of the project. It was always comforting to come back to Wikipedia and see that Tom and others keep watch on these topics and patiently deal with problems. Tom has been much more patient with certain topics and editors and to be permanently topic banned was just over the top. Lastly, I don't want to imply that the admins in the case acted in bad faith or didn't think they were enforcing an ArbCom decision fairly. I do believe they didn't warn Tom on his talk page and give him the opportunity to take a break as the AE decision requires. I don't wish this to become a discussion of whether the AE admins were wrong, but rather does the admin community, in light of 30 days where there has been no issue, feel they can lift the ban. I also feel the AE admins were manipulated by the complainant but that's not the fault of the admins. They are uninvolved and usually unaware of the parties and histories and is what make AE enforcement a double-edged sword and difficult task. There are other administrative forums where the editor in question is well known and would not have been successful in his complaint. As for why Tom has not appealed, it perhaps the same reason I rarely edit there. It's too much drama and fraught with the same nonsense. Whether he chooses to participate in those articles or discussions, I cannot say but you can bet that with a 'topic ban' in place, a simple vandalism revert would be instantly reported by a certain cadre of editors. I request it be lifted for Tom's protection and for the good of the project, not as an admission of wrongdoing or criticism of admins involved. --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support of removal of this ban. Topic banning a conscientious admin in excellent standing on the say-so of a well-known 9/11 conspiracy theory pusher is a miscarriage of justice. I would say (when I'm trying to be nice) that it was caused by over-haste on the part of the admins responsible. Anyway, it violates the spirit of the relevant Arbcom decision and the ethos of this project. What a way to treat people.. ! Bishonen | talk 08:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

• I make no judgement on whether on whether the topic ban should be lifted, but I strongly resent the thinly veiled accusations that the admins at AE acted improperly. Arbitration enforcement is a difficult area to work in, and a thankless task—we deal with the most bitter, partisan disputes on Wikipedia, the disputes that ArbCom has given up on and imposed discretionary sanctions, and this often involves sanctioning long-established and otherwise well-respected editors, for which the sanctioned editor and their mates will accuse admin of being biased against them, and when a determination is made that no sanction is warranted, the filing editor and their mates will accuse admins of being biased in favour of the editor in question. However, the admins who decide the result of an AE thread are neutral, uninvolved admins who simply decide whether the conduct of the editor in question is of the required standard, nd if not, what sanction (if any) to impose. Second, the "initial warning" wording means only that the editor must be aware of the discretionary sanctions on a topic area—given that Tom Harrison has previously enforced this remedy (when he was an admin), and requested enforcement of it, nobody could claim in good faith that he was not aware of it. Disclaimer: I have participated in discussions surrounding the inclusion or otherwise of conspiracy theories in the 9/11 article, so I do not consider myself to be an uninvolved administrator, which is also why I abstained from the relevant AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the lack of a warning by an involved admin is a procedural error. I am not uninvolved so whether or not their conclusions about Tom's edits are correct is not a fair point for me to bring up. However, it appears they took the "warning" by TDA as sufficient. It is not. If Jeffrey Dahmer had complained to the uninvolved Prison Warden that his choice for a last meal was ignored by Tom Harrison and showed letters where Tom had denied his request, it would be improper for the prison warden to simply rely on Dahmers warnings that he should be served his preferred meal. Dahmer could be correct and be requesting string beans or something, but Tom should have been warned directly by the Prison Warden and not have to interpret whether Dahmers request was proper as Dahmer has a history of requesting rather inappropriate meals. It's the difficult part of enforcement because an uninvolved admin has no knowledge of Dahmer, the meals, the history, etc, and that is why it would have been more appropriate to warn Tom by the admin prior to the ban. Tom has taken it in stride as can be shown by his edit history. Compare it to TDA's last 30 days. --DHeyward (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• HJ Mitchell...I surely concur with your points about the AE admins being willing to put themselves in the thick of things by enforcing arbcom decisions...and recognize this is a thankless admin chore. Being a "law and order" kind of person myself, I generally approve strict adherence to arbcom decisions. When I first approached Mkcat on this issue, I was met with a stonewall...and that was fine, so I offered a fair compromise based on the history of Tom Harrison's generally exemplenary contributions to this subject matter. My compromise was to set a time limit on the ban, 30 days, which to be honest was a stretch for my position since I thought the topic ban was preposterous to begin with. Though we all know that indefinite can mean 1 hour or forever, the vagueness of such a penalty to someone of Tom's history simply seemed unfair, especially considering the filer of this complaint, The Devils Advocate, had himself been sentenced to a 30 day topic ban in the same arena. I recognize it is hard to be able to fully evaluate the editing history of some editors and AE enforcement is generally based on the evidence presented. I believe that penalties should fit the "crime" therefore, myself and some others feel that this penalty is now excessive.--MONGO 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let's ask the AE admins to review and reconsider. It's very easy to cherry pick through anyone's contributions and POV pushers are often extremely adept at doing this in order to deflect attention away from their own behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• First, I see that the AE case was not provided by Dheyward. Here is the case. Second, Dhey's claims about Mkat "resigning under a cloud" needs context. Here is Mkat's user talk page at the time he resigned. Third, and most importantly, Tim has already said he would review the ban after March 18th. On a side note, I don't particularly like being compared to Jeffrey Dahmer.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake can we please steer away from the battleground, blame-game, wikilawyering, bickering approach for once? There seems to be a pervasive idea that in order to remove an indefinite topic ban, editors have to prove there was something Wrong^TM with it, or that conversely, if such a topic ban is lifted, that must prove the original admin action was Wrong in some way. Nonsense. Indefinite does not mean infinite and sanctions should be applied with every hope that good contributors will return to contributing fully in the course of time.

One of the most damaging changes to Wikipedia that I have noticed in recent years is the growing obsession with whether actions were Right or Wrong, and a proliferation of rules, regulations, bureaucracy and argument to decide. Shades of grey, differences of interpretation, opinion, judgment calls, all get thrown out of the window in a battle to win the argument: after all, nobody wants to be Wrong, do they? The vast amounts of time spent arguing about water under the bridge only serve to polarize and alienate editors.

Tom is a very fine editor, and has been a valuable contributor to 9/11 articles over many years. I would be happy to support the lifting of the topic ban based on an argument that it would be a net positive for the encyclopedia to do so. I oppose removal based on an argument that the original topic ban was Wrong. I do not give a fuck about alleged "procedural errors" that happened over a month ago. Tom crossed a line and it was within the bounds of reason to apply AE, wikilawyering notwithstanding. That doesn't mean the topic ban was Right or Wrong, or that I would have done the exact same thing, but the topic ban was reasonable enough that it is still in place a month later. This is an encyclopedia project, not a court of law. Future improvements are what matter, not past differences. Geometry guy 18:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I really think that whenever someone uses profanity here they think it must make them a tough guy or something...its rather laughable in fact since it doesn't help the argument in the least. If indeed if what you say is correct, then why did the admin who led the topic ban, namely Mkat, abandon the tools under a cloud primarily over this issue? There was a severe COI on that admins part regarding this action...one severe enough that I was prepared to take it to arbcom. Instead of being reasonable, they ran away...Justice is supposed to prevail, yes, even on Wikipedia. The penalty should fit the "crime" and in this case, we're talking about the barest minimal of an infraction. YOU can wikilawyer all you wish about the meaning of the term "indefinite"....but such an term is generally reserved for those making repeat infractions over time, vandals and trolls...simply put, Tom Harrison is none of those things and this indefinite topic ban is one of the worst applications of arbitrariness I have seen on this website.--MONGO 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong language, sparingly deployed, can be remarkably effective – for instance, in drawing out opinion on style over substance, as in this case. Since I'm not trying to win an argument, I can't possibly be trying to be a tough (nor would I be so dumb!); that's not my approach and never has been. You are of course welcome to read it that way, and also to consider my comment on "indefinite" vs "infinite" to be wikilawyering. Like you, however, I am simply observing practice. I entirely agree with you that Tom Harrison is not a vandal, troll or repeat offender over time; hence even if indefinite topic bans are generally reserved for such situations (which I dispute) that couldn't possibly be the case here, could it? Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, MONGO, Mkat's self-declared "involvement" was in the ARBPIA topic area and only based on the fact he commented at an RfC to support calling Israeli settlements "settlements" consistent with the resounding global consensus. You misconstrued this as being involvement in the 9/11 topic area because it also happens to mention Muslims and Jews.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Even Mkat themself disagrees with you...hence the self declared "under a cloud" comment when relinquishing their tools....here.--MONGO 20:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mkat plainly said that he maintained the propriety of every administrative action he took. The "cloud" remark was because several editors with long-standing grievances began pushing for a recall as an apparent response to the reaction the ban got from you and a couple other editors. Don't misrepresent the situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You have different perceptions about the same events; this is a common phenomenon. Neither of you is going to convince the other that your view is the Right one. Ironically, it doesn't matter a jot, so such bickering is a waste of time and energy. It won't help editors move forward. That is the kernel of my comment. Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if you view my arguments, you will conclude it is in the best interest of the project to remove the ban. Tom has abided by the the topic ban. He hasn't forum shopped it or looked to get admins disciplined. Nor has the arguments I've presented here. Tom is a conscientious editor and if a respected editor or admin had informed him his edits were not proper, it is beyond question that he would have reassessed his edits. That did not happen. Rather a problematic editor provided evidence, convinced the AE admin that an ARBCOM sanction was justified and it occurred. Tom's contribution to the 9/11 articles, his conscientious attitude and his overall contribution to the project is what justifies lifting the ban. Highlighting discrepancies in the process of failing to warn him is not an attempt to Wikilawyer the result but rather to show that if he had been warned, his history and conscience would have stopped the behavior, just as the ban stopped it without so much as a complaint. Tom hasn't challenged the ban precisely because he chooses not to create the conflict you seem to attribute to this request. The ban should be lifted because Tom's contributions to 9/11 articles significantly outweigh the 11 hour of drama that generated the ban. Tom's demeanor is such that if any respected admin or editor warned him, he would have changed tack and course to be more productive. Nothing demonstrates that more than the last 30 days. --DHeyward (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this: I noticed your post before your copyedits to it, but not by many minutes! I think it was a good idea to start this thread for many of the reasons you stated. I would simply encourage you in future to focus on the positives, forward-looking, rather than the negatives, backward-looking. (As a side note, I tend to use "wikilawyer" in a descriptive rather than intentional or pejorative sense: I did not think you were trying to "wikilawyer the result" and I have absolutely no reason to doubt your good faith, so I didn't and don't.) Your response here concentrates much more on the positive focus, apart from the mention of a "problematic editor", and the use of hypotheticals. "What if" is something we can never know for sure. I hope, however, you are encouraged by the positive response to the positive aspects of your request! Geometry guy 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guys' comment here, along with Harkey Lodger's earlier one regarding a different specific issue, is one of the most spot on I've seen on the repeated degradation of discussion on the nominally consensus driven not a bureaucracy Wikipedia into a reality show contest of picking "winners" and "losers." It is disappointing but not surprising the initial reaction misses the entire big picture point and focuses on the fact that gg used the word "fuck." Nobody Ent 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support- The ban is clearly no longer accomplishing anything useful. Reyk _YO! 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A few points:

• I am not currently an admin. Planning to be away for a while, I asked for the permissions to be removed just in case.[39] Since then I haven't seen a pressing need to have them reinstated.

• MPOV is "the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral. This leads to the associated belief that you are a special expert on the topic, and have particular authority to dictate how the article should read." An administrator must be aboslutely certain he knows what is neutral before topic-banning someone over edits the admin thinks are non-neuteral.

• I don't expect Timotheus Canens will be lifting Mkativerata's topic ban. He says, "The ban was sound when it was imposed, and I can tell you right now that I will not be lifting it until and unless I see some indication that edits of this sort will not be repeated."[40] T. Canens has a clear view of what constitutes neutral editing about 9/11; his view is at varience with the sources; he's the admin with enforcement power, and I'm not; and that's pretty much the end of it.

• Finally, people who want to may read the general reply on my talk page, but the way to really improve the project is to read good sources on the topic (sources not limited to what comes to hand online) and then contribute to improving our pages about 9/11.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I commend much of your sentiment here, Tom, but CPOV is confusing neutrality with NPOV. No editor is neutral, but we don't need to be to recognise the difference between attributing opinion (which is NPOV) and stating it in the editorial neutral voice (which is not). Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support of changing topic ban to time served The ban was requested by a user with a history of POV-pushing and an admin who admitted he was 'involved' and resigned under a cloud. Further, this ban is of no benefit to this encyclopedia, given this user's history of positive contribution with over 7,000 edits on the topic. Toa Nidhiki05 21:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the falsehoods. Mkat did not "admit" to being involved with regards to the 9/11 topic area and he was not the only one who supported the indef. Three admins saw the edits as being sufficiently severe to warrant the sanction and there was no confusion on their part about the nature of the edits. Constantly going after me does not in any way take away from the severity of the edits Tom made. Like Geo I would strongly oppose any attempt to overturn this ban as "wrongful" in any way. However, I would support lifting the ban if it is considered that Tom has met the standard set out by Mkat of demonstrating that he will not repeat the kind of edits he was making.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope editors appreciate that the imprecise "under a cloud" cliche effectively smears an editor who is not available to defend themselves; if I ever made such a remark, I would readily strike it. Back on topic, however, I also think reducing topic ban to "time served" is a good recommendation, but suggest that we leave the final call to T. Canens in his review next week. Geometry guy 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Even Illuminati shape-shifting lizards are allowed to edit on this subject. Pippens (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Devil's position here and Geometry guy's that if, if it is considered that Tom has met the standard set out by Mkativerata of demonstrating that he will not repeat the kind of edits he was making, then a removal or a reduction of his editing restrictions can be considered favorably. Youreallycan 23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Tom Harrison is a productive editor with 8 years of service and a clean record minus this incident. The incident itself was essentially over wording. (There is no question that some 9/11 conspiracy theories (CT) are anti-Semitic, such as the claim that 4,000 Jews stayed home on 9/11. I'll be happy to provide sources to anyone who doubts this.)

In any case, Tom been instrumental in making our articles on 9/11 better. Wikipedia gains nothing by keeping this valued and knowlegable editor banned from this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just so everyone is clear on what prompted the topic ban, the following quotes are what Tom sought to insert into the article:

"Ostensibly blaming Israelis, neocons, or greedy financiers, 9/11 conspiracy theories in fact articulate the long-established antisemitic theme of Jews as an international cabal of masterminds manipulating world affairs." - placed in the first paragraph of the lede. [41]

"Overtly blaming the Mossad, disloyal American Jews in government, or profit-seeking developers, 9/11 conspiracy theories continue in the tradition of conspiracy theories generally in presenting the Jews as stateless cosmopolitans who secretly control the world." - inserted at the top of the main theories section, before any of the theories were even described. [42]

"9/11 conspiracy theories, like all conspiracy theories, have their origin in hatred and fear of secret societies, and hatred and fear of Jews." - inserted as the second sentence of the lede. [43]

That all happened, within a single day on the same article. I wasn't cherry-picking his contributions and it wasn't merely suggesting that antisemitism is a common trait of some conspiracy theories as a few editors above imply. The notion that I was somehow "manipulating" the admins as Dhey claims above is patently absurd. No manipulation was necessary. The offense was self-evident. So, I will reiterate, if Tom demonstrates that he won't makes edits like those again, I don't have a problem with him coming back. Even if he just pledged not to do it again I would find that acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Just to add more factual information, Tom's above edits are cited to: (1) a PDF by the Anti-Defamation League, which "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all"; (2) publiceye.org, "researching the right for progressive changemakers" and slate.com; (3) "Conspiracy theories and Secret Societies for Dummies". Yet the information from each of these sources is presented in the editorial neutral voice.

Tom is quite right to suggest that editors should find better sources and use them to improve 9/11 coverage. On this occasion he did not, and was rightly criticized for it. It may be one blemish in an excellent record, but deflecting the blame is not the right way to deal with it. Geometry guy 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"he was rightly critized for it"...no...he was topic banned for it. Perhaps none here are aware of this matter in full. The Devils Advocate (TDA) was topic banned on this subject for 30 days after more than a month of POV pushing...Tom harrison and others had patiently tried to work with TDA during this period but it became untenable...so Tom harrison participated in a report on TDA to AE (filed by Jorgette), where the result of the matter was a 30 day topic ban for TDA. A couple months go by, Tom harrison makes these edits (as mentioned above by TDA) over the span of a day, not months...TDA marches to AE and reports Harrison, and Harrison gets an indefinite ban. Insanity rules...the good editors get the boot and the problem editors get a slap on the wrist...this place becomes more backwards everyday...and I have to say that anyone thinking there has been a fair and equal application of penalty here is nuts.--MONGO 03:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Discretionary sanctions and AE tend to raise the level of response on the criticism-chastisement-sanction scale, as all editors are warned at the top of talk pages of affected articles: part of the point of discretionary sanctions is to encourage extra care and more collaborative editing, after all. However, since you seem to be acknowledging that criticism at least was appropriate, and that this is not simply a case of admins failing to appreciate the claimed neutrality of the above three edits, I see no disagreement between us here that is worth pursuing. I wish I could help resolve your ongoing dispute with TDA, but that is off-topic here, and I've no reason to suppose that my help would be at all welcome by either of you. Geometry guy 23:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I would also like to see the ban lifted. Tom is a respected Wikipedian who has been helping to keep those articles in order for a long time. If his sources on this occasion were not ideal, that's something to be discussed on the talk page, or if the material is very contentious, maybe a warning. To move straight to a topic ban did seem hasty. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• support lifting the topic ban... and as an aside... with no reference to any of the underlying edits in this case... our topic ban system is insane. It allows a small vocal minority to imposes "bans" within less than 12 hours when most editors don't even see the edits in question, or read the ANI pages. Emergency blocks are fine... but indefinite bans enacted with such little due process is ridiculous. I don't know much about this underlying case... but this seems like a good example to raise of how our "ban" process is out of control Shadowjams (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
• Support. This topic ban is disproportionate, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: While I personally didn't agree with the original topic ban, I think it was within the discretion afforded to WP:AE admins and was appropriately placed. Instead of questioning the appropriateness of the topic ban (which was legit), it's probably more constructive to address whether it should be lifted at present. I would strongly support Tom's return to this topic area, as I think his overall track record there is remarkable both for his constructive contributions and his patience. Taken as a whole, his work in the area has been a huge net positive. When I think about the dozens of second chances we give to editors whose impact is unremittingly negative, it seems like a no-brainer to let Tom back with time served. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - it does not appear that the topic ban is currently preventing damage to the encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to note that I rather dislike the suggestions that Tom's prior contributions means those edits noted above should have been regarded with less severity. When an editor is as deeply familiar with the process and policies as Tom the community should honestly expect a higher standard of behavior. No individual or group should ever feel like they have a "protected" status that allows them to get away with violating the core principles of the project. That is also why I strenuously object to any effort to remove the ban as wrongful, because it will only increase that perception of there being protection for certain editors who will then abuse that protection. Removing it on the basis that 30 days is long enough (something I would agree with) and his contributions elsewhere have been constructive is reasonable and consistent with what was desired by the admins who supported the sanction. Anything else will only be an encouragement for editors interested in defaming minority views.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of giving long-term contributors "protected" status... more a matter of recognizing that they, too, are human. Tom has made about 43,000 edits over the past 8 years. Four of them were deemed problematic and led to his topic ban. It's great that you expect perfection, but most human beings are incapable of it. If 99.99% of his edits are fine and he screws up once every 8 years, then I think our standards are sufficiently high, if not frighteningly unrealistic. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've previously commented on the AE page and will avoid further comment, except to support removal of the sanctions, and to note that much of the "defamation" noted in the comment above was, prior to 2003, self-inflicted by Truthers, and TDA that doesn't have a license to whitewash that particular bit of history simply because Tom overreached. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A content dispute is not relevant here, but the insinuation that I am interested in whitewashing anything is absurd. I think people should stop using this as the official "trash TDA thread" and stick to the question presented. Should a single one of you have an issue with my recent conduct in that topic area you are free to file a report. This constant barrage anywhere and everywhere is getting tiresome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Snowball? I would like to propose on the Snowball principle that the topic ban be lifted. There is no need to comment on the various bickerings on the justification of the ban, suffice only to say that 30 days have elapsed and the project has not burned to the ground. Tom has quietly gone about his business and the purpose of the ban has outlived it's relevance. Will an admin close this on snowball and remove the topic ban from AE? A note that the removal of the topic ban does not condone the edits or condemn the admins may be appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, I would find a close along those lines acceptable. So long as it is clear that the edits Tom made were not permitted I do not object to him returning to the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins, please do note...The Devils Advocate had a 30 day topic ban in this subject matter himself...and has been blocked once edit warring in this subject and another time for violating his topic ban...and when he filed his AE report had then also violated 3RR in the same topic but managed to escape that block. Me thinks two blocks, a topic ban and a missed block=tendentious editing in the same topic and should = an indefinite topic ban...much more so than a few edits made in the course of one day over an 8 year history of blemish free editing and never once a block.--MONGO 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, for the sake of goodness :) Far better, methinks, to send a positive message to Tom about the widespread appreciation there is for the vast majority of his contributions than send negative messages about this month-old lapse, and the response to it by admins and others. To the many editors commenting here in such a positive spirit, thank you: it matters for the health of the community, which is vital for improving the encyclopedia, so lets keep doing it! Geometry guy 23:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. I think a good message that also says "Tom it's been thirty days of quiet reflection where you have not made any edits to 9/11 topics and graciously accepted this topic ban. Your vast majority of contributions lead us to believe you can be trusted to edit 9/11 topics if you so choose." I think that's a sentiment reflected in the the overwhelming majority of comments above. This isn't a referendum on what happened 30 days ago, it's a decision looking forward with an understanding of his past edits that Tom is indeed trustworthy enough to edit this topic (or any topic). That is the positive message that needs to be reinforced. --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, with you there 100%. Geometry guy 00:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I had a quick look at the AE where the topic ban was implemented and I can't understand a word of it. I guess those expert in matters regarding nutcases and 9/11 can recognize Tom's edits as somehow inappropriate, but the explanations escape me (I suspect that the principal enforcing admin, now retired, just misunderstood the diffs). At any rate, and with thanks to those admins who participate at AE, this topic ban is not required. Thanks to Tom and all others who defend the encyclopedia against nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

AIDS and related pages topic ban for BruceSwanson (talk · contribs)

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.

---

BruceSwanson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disclosed on his user page that he denies the link between HIV and AIDS (or some variant thereof, I expect some sort of goalpost-moving sophistry to be invoked). He was also involved in off-wiki AIDS denialist activities [44] though those links are now dead and have been removed from his user page. Bruce's contributions to any and all AIDS and AIDS-related articles (including AIDS denialists) have long been problematic:

• From April, 2010, this promotion of Duesberg's scientifically illegitimate assertions regarding AIDS being caused by homosexuality and related edits [45]
• From June, 2010, deleting the scientific community's consensus regarding the Perth Group's AIDS-denialism from Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos [46]
• From July, 2010, these two attempts to demonstrate HIV does not fulfil Koch's postulates
• From August, 2010, note this MFD discussion regarding an inappropirate rewrite of Inventing the AIDS Virus/Duesberg hypothesis
• From December, 2010, this discussion on the AZT talk page and edits to the main page misuse primary sources to exaggerate the risks and play down the benefits of AZT in the treatment of AIDS.
• From February, 2011, adding Inventing the AIDS Virus as a source and softening the wording (again on AIDS denialism) [47]
• From February, 2012, tagging AIDS denialism [48]
• Again from February, 2012, deleting the scientific consensus from Inventing the AIDS Virus [49]
• From March, 2012, pointy suggestion that Inventing the AIDS Virus be deleted
• Again from March, 2012, inappropriate use of the {{NPOV}} tag [50] and replacing it despite a lack of consensus on the talk page [51]

Though it should be unnecessary to say, it is the unambiguous scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS; what was once a point of debate in the 80s is now a nigh-universally accepted scientific theory that only a handful of denialists still push. Bruce has consistently pushed the idea that AIDS is harmless, that Peter Duesberg is correct, and generally inappropriately used Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote AIDS denialism in both blatant and more subtle ways (above are the most explicit and obviously problematic edits, but there are more - see here, here, here). There is no indication that this behaviour is likely to change despite numerous editors pointing out the problems with his edits. Accordingly, I suggest a topic ban on all edits related to AIDS and AIDS denialism, including Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus and the biographies of all AIDS denialists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, and suggest extending topic ban to all biomedical articles given the disruption at the hep C article. At the very least a "broadly construed" clause should be included. Skinwalker (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• (Involved editor) If a topic ban is considered, then it should probably extend to all medical articles. While BruceSwanson's primary editorial fixation is on undermining the connection between HIV and AIDS, he's also been active at hepatitis C virus (where, unsurprisingly, he insinuates that HCV either doesn't exist or doesn't cause hepatitis). There is probably a limit to how long editors of a serious reference work should have to put up with this sort of silliness, although I understand that editorial patience is generally presumed, in the Wikipedia model, to be infinite and infinitely renewable.

  Personally, in a moment of (weakness|optimism) I once tried to reason Bruce out of some of his more idiosyncratic viewpoints ([52], not for the faint of heart). The results of that effort have led me to give up on interacting with him as a productive use of my time, and I think WP:SHUN is probably the way to go here. But given the difficulty in applying that approach, a topic ban may be more reasonable and practical. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as an involved editor. As an update, BruceSwanson's continued off-wiki attempts to recruit denialists to tag Wikipedia articles can be found here. He has edit warred on the Inventing the AIDS Virus talk page (4 reverts in last 24 hours). I think a quick perusal of the edit history of the talk page will be enlightening. I, unfortunately, responded to one of his comments, but recognizing he would likely use my response to go off on one of his tirades about AIDS denialism, I one minute later decided to delete my post instead to avoid giving him that opportunity. BruceSwanson then reverted my deletion against my wishes, and despite multiple objections made, has continued to revert my deletion of my comment and replaced my comments and then struck them out struck out. If his feelings about this topic brings out this type of behavior, he needs to find another subject where he isn't a disruption. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• AIDS denialism is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, right? If so, and if no one has done it before me by I get back later this evening, I will formally issue and log the ban. With that out of the way,Hasn't been formally notified of discretionary sanctions as required, apparently. I will fix that now, but think that the topic ban discussion should go forward. I too think that we should also take a look at the whether we should impose a broader topic ban and/or a block. NW (Talk) 17:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see where DS were authorized for AIDS/HIV-related edits.Never mind, just read your notification. That said, it looks like a good place to apply them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - anyone promulgating these false--dangerously false, as they contribute to infection rates--'theories' should be topicbanned at a minimum. Frankly he should be banned entirely. → ROUX ₪ 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban from all medical-related topics. It is clear that this user is not here to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but rather to merely to promote his personal point of view. While I feel that may not be sufficient reason for a topic ban on its own, the complete inability to work collaboratively with others is unacceptable and makes the ban necessary. Deli nk (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban on medical articles and any AIDS-tangential political topic, broadly construed. In June 2010, a "QuestioningAIDS" forum user named BruceSwanson advocated disruption to Wikipedia regarding AIDS topics. The guy is dangerous and activist. This cannot be tolerated. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per Roux, I'd suggest that a permanent ban would be appropriate. Wikipedia cannot be used as a forum for the promotion of dangerous fringe theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, based on the ongoing IDHT response that I'm seeing below. A topic ban (on medicine, or at least infectious diseases, and on AIDS- and HIV-related topics, widely construed) seems the only reasonable response the community has left. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The recent edits at Inventing the AIDS Virus follow the same pattern as those at other "controversial" articles, where there really is no controversy among scholars. Dealing with this kind of thing wears people down. I wish there were a better solution than topic-banning, but don't see any other options. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The guy is dangerous and activist. This cannot be tolerated. I love it.

Remember, whatever you do in making this decision, be sure to:

1) Let past offenses accumulate. There is no statute of limitations. All offenses are permanent.

That's it. You're done! BruceSwanson (talk)

You miss the point Bruce - the issue is that you are still doing it. We all make mistakes, most of us have edit warred and we all have done the wrong thing at some point in our editing history. The issue is you stop when you are warned, corrected or dissenting information is brought to your attention. The problem is the pattern of active AIDS denialism on both article and talk pages for two years despite many, many editors citing reliable sources, policies and guidelines indicating it is inappropriate. Page ban discussions don't start based on what happend two years ago - they start based on the errors of two years ago being repeated now. If you'd stopped editing AIDS-related pages, we wouldn't be here. If you had edited to give due weight to the idea that HIV causes AIDS and kills people - but mentioned briefly that AIDS denialism existed and was completely wrong - we wouldn't be here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly: he is still doing it. Hasn't stopped for two years. We need to act. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that what Richard Horton says in the Inventing the AIDS Virus article -- simply that HIV causes AIDS and kills people, thus bolstering the lead paragraph's claim to unambiguous scientific consensus? Or does he say that Duesberg is correct in predicting that HIV doesn't explain all facets of immunodeficiency? Is it promoting AIDS denialism to point out the discrepancy?

I mean, there is a discrepancy, isn't there? Right in the article itself.

Oh, and what about Yobol's insistence on his right to delete his Talk page comments, as if, once posted, they remain his and his alone to control? BruceSwanson (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you mean that Yobol removes comments other people has left on Yobol's own talk page, there's no problem; people are allowed to remove anything from their talk pages (except for things needed for processes, such as declined unblock templates and speedy deletion templates) if they feel like it. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm talking about a comment he posted on the Inventing the AIDS Virus talk page. Then he deleted it. I saw it and restored it and then asked a question about it. He deleted it. I re-restored it. I posted my reasoning for doing so right on the Talk page. Yobol continued to delete his own comment -- which is exactly why we are here right now. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't resist posting an example of WLU's reasoning, above: Page ban discussions don't start based on what happend two years ago - they start based on the errors of two years ago being repeated now.

Ah. The distinction is . . . clear, like.BruceSwanson (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that we are here because of your attempts to use Wikipedia as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Richard Horton is or was an AIDs denialist? BruceSwanson (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that you are attempting to use Wikipedia as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory. HIV causes AIDS. AIDS kills people. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So apparently you side with the crowd that will consider "errors" committed two years ago in deciding the issue today. All offenses are permanent. Otherwise, there is no justification for your claim that I am using Wikipedia as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory, any more than you could accuse Richard Horton of the same thing.

Or is that just semantics? BruceSwanson (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See this edit [53]. You are still attempting to use Wikipedia as a forum to promote a dangerous fringe theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring this. Try reading it and then tell me what you think. BruceSwanson (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd already seen it. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS and AIDS kills people. Your edit was made in an effort to suggest otherwise. That is self evident. That you chose to defend this by arguing over semantics on article talk pages is no indication to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree that The overwhelming scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS and AIDS kills people. I have no problem with that statement at all. Really, I don't. The consensus is indeed overwhelming. But is it unambiguous, as stated in the lead paragraph of the Inventing the AIDS Virus article? It isn't -- because of the Horton quote found in that article. So why not say that the consensus is overwhelming instead of unambiguous?

Or you could just delete the Horton quote. How would you feel about that? BruceSwanson (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support The subject is controversial only for a small, vocal minority. The ban should be broadly-construed across all medical subjects: this is a particularly pernicious form of POV pushing. Acroterion (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject is controversial only for a small, vocal minority . . . this is a particularly pernicious form of POV pushing.

I quite agree. BruceSwanson (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the broad medical content topic ban - sorry Bruce, your conflicted and better off not contributing in this sector at all. - Youreallycan 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm conflicted? Could you be more specific, Doctor? BruceSwanson (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of all medical articles. The off-wiki effects of whether or not someone denies a relation between AIDS and HIV should not be a consideration here, nor should the fact or otherwise of there being a relation. That latter is an editing matter dependent on reliable sources. The user's demonstrated inability (after two years? seriously?) to collaborate with others in a constructive and collegial manner and, chiefly, his persistence in POV-pushing against consensus is sufficient grounds for a topic ban, broadly construed. ClaretAsh 00:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Let past offenses accumulate. There is no statute of limitations. All offenses are permanent.

Next! BruceSwanson (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolling is doing your cause no good at all. If you have nothing constructive to say, I suggest you remain silent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• At this point, given the response to the section, I would support a complete site ban (nominator). I think nothing is lost but drama, and much spare time to be gained. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I too support a total across-the-board ban. Bruce's remarks above about Richard Horton actually do argue for a deletion of the Horton quote from the Inventing the AIDS Virus article and inserting it on Horton's own article page as a warning about Horton's own lack of clear thinking regarding HIV/AIDS. Also it is an old comment. Newer sources should take precedence. And yes, Bruce, we should definitely let some past offenses accumulate. There is no uniform statute of limitations for offenses that conflict with consensus (except if the consensus has changed).

Also, I agree that Yobol has a right to delete his own comments on the Inventing the AIDS Virus talk page, and keep them deleted at his own discretion. Again, his position reflects true scientific consensus. No more semantics, please. Consensus alone counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Operative67 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all medical topics, broadly construed. If the concerns about POV pushing didn't convince me of this, the editor's comments here have. From what I've seen, it appears that they either truly do not understand the reason this was brought up here, or they are feigning ignorance in some sort of misguided and ineffective attempt to muddy the issue. It doesn't matter if it is WP:CIR or WP:IDHT, there is an issue here, and it needs to be solved. - SudoGhost 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from all medical topics, broadly construed. I have seen the issues in the past, and the attitude displayed here confirm that a broad topic ban is required as volunteers cannot be expected to combat fringe theory promotions forever. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• (Involved editor) Support indefinite topic ban from all medical topics, broadly construed, with immediate site ban should this be violated. I've also tried to reason with Bruce, back in June 2010 [54], but soon realised I was wasting my time. Seriously, the total amount of productive editors' time that dealing with this person has consumed is a tragedy. I'm glad to see unanimous support for WLU's proposal, and I hope the next fringe POV-pusher can be topic-banned far more swiftly, leaving the rest of us to actually improve the encyclopedia. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban or, failing that, a topic-ban from all medical topics, broadly construed across all namespaces. If I wasn't convinced at the top of this thread that Bruce has no intention of contributing to Wikipedia constructively, I'm definitely convinced after reading the foot-shooting that he's done in this thread. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with liberty to review in future for a full site ban. Pushing dangerous ideas & no evidence he is here to work collaboratively. GiantSnowman 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for restore external link and block of a user

• imagesfrombulgaria.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There has been a misunderstanding about an external link. The subject of question is Imagesfrombulgaria.com which is a non commercial site with free content and very rich (illustrative and informative for almost if not all villages in Bulgaria). A new user tried to blacklisted it but after an intervention from two sysops from BG Wiki (myself and Spiritia (talk · contribs)) the link has been removed from the blacklist. You can see the request here. The new user Kirov Airship (talk · contribs) provides no arguments why an external link to a free content is inappropriate but keeps on removing the link. We all agree that images uploaded to Wikipedia have more encyclopedic value than an external link, but where there are none or few, the next best thing is as I see it an external link to a free content. The IP that undid the edits of User:Kirov Airship has been blocked, but as I see it User:Kirov Airship needs a block for unbacked removal of an useful link and edit war. So :) my request is an administrator to restore the link in the articles (I can do it myself, but I'm asking for an administrative intervention since this linkage has been called "abuse" for reasons I don't understand) and for a block to the User:Kirov Airship. He has been warned on his talk page to stop removing informative links from the articles and his edits have been undid in BG Wiki. Thank you :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm quoting from User Hu12: "if continued linking abuse occurs on en.wikipedia.org, we should reconsider.". And User Алиса Селезньова still keeps adding those spam links. It seems like Алиса Селезньова is someone closely related with imagesfrombulgaria.com probably a close friend of of the owner of the web site or the owner himself. --Kirov Airship (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said restoring a link to a free content web site in two articles can hardly be called a link abuse. I firmly insist on blocking the user who keeps removing the link from many, many articles. Insinuations on my personal life seem offensive.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it is a commercial web site. It has tons of adds. And I'm not a new user. I've registered before 20 July 2008. --Kirov Airship (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The email that I have received from the the owner of imagesfrombulgaria.com shows me how right I am by removing the links. The email shows that the mass adding of the links were done by the owner himself. He says that he can do it nonstop; "he can add the links nonstop even if I delete them". http://i.imgur.com/lvixd.png http://pastebin.com/kxzPQ8QY http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#imagesfrombulgaria.com --Kirov Airship (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC) http://pastebin.com/951yygPa --Kirov Airship (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that the link is informative and relevant to articles from which you remove it. Removing an informative and relevant data without valid arguments causing edit war, as I see it, is pure vandalism.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

I actually don't understand why this site is not blacklisted at meta. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to this. We are writing an encyclopedia here. Not a linkfarm. Images from bulgaria can be uploaded and displayed on the pages, they do not need to be linked. That does not add anything significant to the pages. I would suggest that you are very careful with further linking, or this may very well end up on the meta blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For your information, it doesn't matter whether or not a website is commercial or not: commercial websites are often useful, and many noncommercial websites are problematic. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I asked where am I getting it wrong and why adding an informative, relevant link to a free content is an abuse and why reporting an obvious vandalism (if removing relevant data is still a vandalism) is WP:BOOMERANG when I have only few edits on the subject. Adding a link is easier for new users as the IP (I suppose is a new user) than uploading images. As I said images uploaded to Wikipedia have more encyclopedic value than an external link, but where there are none or few, the next best thing is as I see it an external link to a free content. If adding illustrative material "does not add anything significant to the pages" I transfer with pure heart the decision on what should be done to the local sysops and leave the discussion. As we say in Bulgaria - you are not small, you've taken an oath. :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The very issue is, that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. There are many links which are informative, but it is outside our goal. It is not an excuse that if one can not upload the images (something that (an)other user(s) actually did!), that one should then link to it. It may be a good policy on the Bulgarian Wikipedia that there are many links there on a page, here it is not, nor is it on many other wikis. That link was plainly blatantly spammed to many wikis, without leaving it to a discussion on the local pages. Here, you also did not choose to discuss, you just pushed that link. I think it is rightfully suggested for blacklisting on meta. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Many links? But in most cases this link is the-only-one? I also don't see it useful to be added to articles with many other more useful links and with images uploaded (you can see my comments above). As far as I see I am discussing it not only pushing it (?). If one link turns en Wiki into a linkfarm I stay firmly on my announced transfer above. :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect block notice

Does anyone know why this IP still shows as blocked when I check their contributions, even though the block expired in January? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't show as blocked for me, plus they've been editing... Worm^TT · (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently, he was autoblocked. As you can see here, when I removed the block from the IP, an autoblock actually got cleared. This really should be fixed, as it gives non-checkusers a backdoor method of finding the IP of an account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of page history requested

Can someone please restore the 276 deleted edits of Statesman? I have asked the deleting admin to do this, but he doesn't seem inclined to do so. Fram (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Request archived to User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2012Mar#Deleting an article out of process. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Suppose that you could have gone to WP:REFUND, but this works. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Forgotten that we have "refund" as well, first time that I needed this as far as I remember. Fram (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The undeletion effectively histmerged two distinct pages (Statesman and Statesman (disambiguation)) together, interleaving their histories and creating nonsensical diffs. This outcome was set up by the {{db-move}} delete and move. I agree with Fram that the G6 speedy was incorrect, considering the merge outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Statesman. The copy and paste of the deleted article to Talk:Statesman directly contravened WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jeez, a few poor decisions here. Flatscan is bang on the money. Rich shouldn't have deleted that article against the AfD consensus and even if there had been consensus at somewhere like RM to move Statesman (disambiguation) to Statesman, then the old history of Statesman should have been moved to somewhere like Talk:Statesman/old so that it could still be merged into Politician without causing any attribution problems. At that time it was a regrettable decision, but one that was easily reversible. The last thing that should have been done was to effectively histmerge the two articles together, making the history a mess. The histmerge definitely needs to be undone, explanation of how to do so can be found at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#How to undo a history merge. There need to be two distinct histories, located at either Statesman and Talk:Statesman/old or Statesman and Statesman (disambiguation). Then there should probably a RM discussing whether there is a primary topic for "Statesman" or if there isn't one and the dab page should be located there. Also, I've removed Fastily's "resolved" tag – that is clearly not the case. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; Fram's request led me to believe that it was a case of convenient linear histories: the existing history started after the deleted history ended, rather than overlapping greatly. I'll see what I can do. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to keep my request as neutral and succinct as possible, to avoid additional drama. I hadn't forseen these consequences of leaving out some details. Sorry about that. Fram (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's done; unless I missed something, all of the history of the article on statesmen is at Talk:Statesman/old, while all of the history of the disambiguation page (minus a few diffs consisting solely of pagemoves by Rich and me during the last few days) is at Statesman. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the Old AfD template to the talk page, and posted a link to Talk:Statesman/old and explanation of what happened at Talk:Statesman with possible further actions. Otherwise the /old page would be left without any useful incoming links, making it harder for people seeing the AfD to know what happened afterwards. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me too. Thanks for cleaning that up so quickly guys. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the histories. I don't see any outstanding issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

School shooting

Will someone please look at the recent history of this article and ponder whether the IP's edits, esp. this one, warrant some kind of investigation? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Now reported it to the pertinent staffers :). In future you can do the same by sending an email and any details to emergencywikimedia.org; they're very prompt. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, but I wasn't sure if this was email-worthy in the first place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This page offers some insight on what should and shouldn't be reported, in the opinion of at least one user. This one probably didn't need to be reported; but I think every day there will be threads like this... - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if some sort of page protection is in order, to avoid edits such as those mentioned above? ClaretAsh 22:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

More uninvolved admin eyes prudent at Callista Gingrich

Right folks, this is a highly visible page which has been discussed in the media in the past few months. There has been plenty of pushing of content in one direction or the other, and the Communications Director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign, Joedesantis (talk · contribs) has been making suggestions on the talk page. Given this whole issue of Conflict of Interest is a vexed one, and currently being discussed at present, I think extra uninvolved admin eyes are a Really Good Idea, and appreciate help here as there is quite a bit of pushing and shoving content-wise. I have been an admin for a long time but spend most of my time content editing and arbing, and my free time is incredibly patchy at present.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of polemics policy

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.

---

a) How many recent stabbing events on Jews would persuade you -- the uninvolved admin -- that a call on someone's talk page to 'sharpen weapons' against Jews for 'victory' is offensive and should be addressed via WP:UP#POLEMIC?
b) Should a decision on this type of issue be left for uninvolved admins or should it be open for a !vote to all the highly involved wiki-editors/parties of the real world "dispute"?

Proper disclosure: in what I consider to be an unethical decision, a few admins recently decided that raising this as an issue on WP:AE is disruptive enough to be topic-ban worthy.

With respect, -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So now that you are topic banned for filing frivolous arbitration enforcement requests, you think continuing your crusade on another noticeboard is good idea? I see you have not done anything else in the mean time. I suggest you go edit the encyclopedia and stop throwing boomerangs at yourself.--Atlan (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for review of my actions in warning User:Colonel Warden

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

This has spilled over to WP:ANI, closing to avoid duplicate discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I like to be brief.

• Here, on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Article_Rescue_Squadron, I ask Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) to be nice, as not doing so adds to the semi-hostile atmosh of the page.
• Here Warden responds by refering to my deletion of an article as "an act of petty vengeance."
• As a result, I have given an offical warning that a block for disruption will be forthcoming if he does not stop adding fuel to the fire.
• The deletion in question is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most highly populated countries

We simply cannot continue to allow people to make editting into a war, and it's my intention to start taking a hard line with comments of this nature. (Not just from ARS-ers, but in general. Feel free to add diffs of me being a jerk to people if the event that hypocricy is detected.)

I do not believe that my previous interactions make me in any way involved, but I'm erring on the side of caution and putting this here.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. How is this an AN issue (yet), as you've only worn your admin hat? MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been "back" that long and I've had a few (minor) incidents where my mop-weilding has been a out-of-tune with current conventions, in particular where I blocked User:Bidgee in a similar circumstance. "Civility" is always a hot-button issue, as is "ARS" and "Involed," so I'm just checking my calibration before I go off half-cocked again, to mix my metaphors. I prefer the stately atmosphere here pre-block as opposed to the fre-for-all at ANI post-block. (Not that that's a "when" but an "if," of course.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Brenneman is no stranger to WP:BATTLEFIELD tactics and escalatory language.  His Wikipedia greeting/strong-arming to me of 13 July 2011 is still visible on my talk page.  The tactic was employed to protect an editor that had forged a !vote.  The tactic was successful in chilling the AfD discussion—I did not again participate.  Here are some of Brenneman's recent contributions:

• 9 March: "egregious" intensified as "particularly egregious", "appalling", "If you're not here to read and think a little bit before chipping in, then why are you here?" (=depersonalization)
• 14 March: "fillibuster", "finger-wagging", "egregious" intensified as "particularly egregious". "Is this normal behaviour for this editor?" (=casting aspersions)
• 15 March: this edit mocks WP:TPG both with the words "shock horror" in the edit comment, and edits to three other editor's posts.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2012

At least some of this appears to be a complaint that the user has an extensive vocabulary; I don't think, for example, that I've ever seen "egregious" condemned as abusive language before. And "filibuster" had already been used, in aelated discussion, by the user whose conduct was being discussed in the March 14 post. I hardly think lucid and literate prose should be so easily faulted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No one except the previous poster has said anything about "abusive language"—refuting a non-existent point is called refuting a straw man.  As to whether or not the previous poster has a valid implied argument that "filibuster" is not "escalatory language", it is a minor point.  As to whether or not the word "abusive" enters into this discussion, I think that the ways that it enters in are more abstract than relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

On further review, the word "fillibuster" [sic] shouldn't be in the original post, I apologize.  While searching for the related "filibuster" I noticed this diff, in which the previous poster also quotes the word "filibuster".  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For conveniance:

• (undated) User_talk:Unscintillating#Your_comments_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FGargoyle_Router_Firmware,
• 9 March: "particularly egregious" / "appalling",
• 14 March: "fillibuster" / "egregious"

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• • "battlefield", "tactic"x3, "escalatory", "strong-arming", "protect", "forged", "chilling". Amidoinitrightguise? Reyk _YO! 02:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think that since the comment you warned him for making was directed against you you were most certainly involved, and that if you were to actually carry out the sanction with which you threatened him you would clearly be acting improperly. It is not possible to be acting as "an authority" in addressing offenses committed against oneself. (Oh and unscintillating - his message to you was completely fine - even if he is fully involved he has every right to request you not to be rude, without you being a dick about it)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you were secure in your analysis, why did you add a genitalia word to reinforce the already-clear logic?  I suspect that you didn't notice that Brenneman did not use the convention of putting my words in double guotes, it is another editor whose words are in double quotes.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gargoyle_Router_Firmware&oldid=439187977 Here is the comment in context, the last on the page.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much I think - instead of simply saying that you didn't mean to offend him when you quoted that other editors comment about him you just went on to behave in a way that is difficult to describe without using the genitalia word. When people feel offended in spite of the fact you didn't mean to offend them, as a general rule offending them more doesn't solve that problem.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To respond to the nominal argument, the nominal argument is that Brenneman came to my user page because he was offended by a comment I made that quoted another editor.  First point, he doesn't say that he was offended, he asserts "surprise".  Second point, he never raised an objection to the editor who was the source of the quote.  Why would he complain to an editor quoting another editor, and not complain to the source of the material?  The simple explanation is that what I quoted was not at issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

{off topic} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware has Bigtimepeace deleting after deletion review, so I'm CSD tagging it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• The RfC in question is quite long so here's a summary, as I see it:

1. The RfC set the scene with a section, Background of the dispute, which describes the matter, starting thus: "At the forefront of this dispute is the long-running divide in the community between "deletionists" and "inclusionists" who take different views...'".
2. I noticed the RfC in centralized discussion and, as the topic is familiar, contributed to the discussion, citing a particular AFD as a topical example.
3. Aaron Brenneman likewise contributed to the discussion here.
4. Aaron Brenneman then openly criticised my use of the words "incorrigible deletionists". It's not clear to me what he doesn't like about this. The RfC was explicitly framed in the context of the conflict between inclusionists and deletionists which is well known both inside and outside Wikipedia and which we document in the article deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Does he perhaps misunderstand the word incorrigible? For avoidance of doubt, note that I used it with its normal dictionary meaning of "incapable of being corrected" indicating that the deletionists in that case seemed quite set in their ways. I was thinking of editors such as TenPoundHammer who, may it be noted, is currently the subject of a separate RfC for reasons of this sort.
5. Aaron Brenneman subsequently closed the topical AFD against the views of editors such as myself and DGG. The other editor who had heckled my contribution to the RfC, then followed up by deleting other elements of that matter. These actions of deletion seemed to be sending a message of belligerent provocation.
6. Aaron Brenneman seems to be over-reaching by acting in several capacities: as a partisan in the discussion; as a high-minded arbiter of good taste; and as an administrative executive. We also have something of a history which arose out of another AFD and so he seems too involved to be considered impartial.
7. Overall, the matter seems to be a storm in a teacup - what is commonly called drama. I don't like wasting my time on such stuff but I equally don't like the idea that I can be chased off from an RfC by someone who doesn't care for my views on that matter. The point of an RfC is to solicit input and so one can't really complain when one gets it. If the discussion is policed too severely or views from one side are suppressed then a good consensus will not be obtained because the discussion will not have been sufficiently frank and open.

Warden (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Petty vengeance"? It seems that's a comment that can be easily refuted on the merits if untrue. Same with "incorrigible". If you can't handle it though, I guess its up to you admin folks. Another option is to use the Shakespeare Insulter to defuse any tension, e.g., "Thou weedy unchin-snouted gudgeon!"--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed by Kww

The Colonel has been indefinitely blocked by Kww. Discussion is on AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Has been unblocked by Drmies. Peridon (talk)

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.

Huge MFD backlog

WP:MFD has a backlog stretching a full month back — the oldest discussion was begun on February 17 and has had no discussion for some time now. Anyone wanna plow through it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume there is no easy .js tool... MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

importScript('User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js'); works well. You do need to be on the edit window for the links to be visible though. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it. Is it skin-specific? MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any more MFDs being closed… Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done And I really really hate the vector skin. MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI backlog

We've got quite a backlog at WP:SPI. Need some clerks and/or checkusers over there.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Any administrator can look at SPI cases and determine whether or not action is necessary; it's not limited to clerks or CUs. See WP:SPI/AI for more information. --MuZemike 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Need someone with experience in rangeblocks

Following the latest Jeff Merkey incident (see here and here for context), I rangeblocked 69.171.160/24. Far as I can tell, rangeblocks are the only known way to keep the guy somewhat in check. This has caught two other users so far. Arealprize (talk · contribs) (see this as to why this has no elicited much reaction) was the first. Today I got a wikipedia email from Obotlig (talk · contribs) requesting an unblock ("It is a large ISP.").

It seems at first glance like Obotlig possibly just happened to register during a period when the range was not blocked, but I'm not entirely sure. Now I'm not very proficient in rangeblocks (I haven't done much—if any—administration stuff in the last 3 or so years, and have always avoided doing rangeblocks if I could), and I'd really appreciate help with how (if possible) to narrow that block so as to avoid blocking a new, productive user.

ETA: I just noticed Obotlig seems to clearly not be affected by the block itself (multiple edits since then, unless he's editing from somewhere else), so I asked for clarification. Circéus (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the block on 69.171.160.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) to be anon-only. This should be fix the problem with existing users. I also put in a pointer to tools:~acc for those new users who want an account to edit. Obviously, if anon-only blocks prove insufficient, we'll have to apply hard blocks. In that case, the best solution would be manually granting IP block exemption to affected accounts. T. Canens (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbanning of TreasuryTag

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.

---

TreasuryTag (talk · contribs)
Treasury tag has just posted the following unblock request on his page.

Per my previous unblock request – all of which still stands, of course – and WP:OFFER. I would also like to point out that I've not socked, not nagged, not abused this talkpage etc. I'm contrite, I've taken my break and I feel ready to give it another shot at changing my ways. Please consider this request charitabily. TT.

As he was community banned per this discussion, I'm bringing it to the community. No comment for the moment regarding the unblock. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, discussion based on previous unblock request - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#User:TreasuryTag unblock request – December 2011 Worm^TT · (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• I was never comfortable with the way that the previous unblock request decline morphed into a community ban. Support unban without restriction; that is, I think the community ban should be lifted. Support an unblock subject to any restrictions the admin doing the unblocking thinks are appropriate; I think some ground rules prior to an unblock would be wise, but that can be worked out between TT and the unblocking admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just leaving this here for the record: they're community banned only in that their indefinite block was endorsed by the community. If the block is overturned, the ban will automatically become defunct. Swarm ^X 21:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• If I remember rightly, standard procedure interprets a community refusal to overturn an indefinite block as a community ban. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• And that's exactly what happened. Swarm ^X 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Before we jump into voting, some discussion might be in order here, yes? The previous unban discussion included an element of mentorship to be conducted by Worm That Turned and Fastily; is mentorship a part of this unban request as well, or is this request actually substantially different from the previous one?

As well, I'll copy over a chunk of my comment from the last discussion, as – mentored or not – it would still seem to apply to any unblock request.

What TT and his mentors should be doing during his block is not make repeated requests on this board and attempt to negotiate an immediate return. The community has pretty clearly spoken on this issue—they see TT as a net negative for the project, and the fact that it's taking such an elaborate monitoring regime for a return to be even considered speaks volumes. Frankly, a good portion of the community probably sees this extended discussion as an ill-considered further waste of resources, and wants to know why we can't get just a few weeks of peace and quiet. Instead, you three should be spending the time in quiet, reflective – and probably private, off-wiki – consultation with TT. The three of you need to be able to clearly elucidate how TT returning to the project will be a substantial and significant net benefit to Wikipedia. Figure out specific areas where he has contributions to make. Clearly identify past problems, and how those will be avoided or addressed. Your page User:Worm That Turned/TreasuryTag is a start, but the "What went wrong" and "Suggested tasks" sections are devoid of content. You've suggested editing restrictions, but they don't flow from a clearly-stated understanding of where they arose or why they are needed. The proposal tells us what TT won't be allowed to do, but it doesn't tell us what he plans to do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, where did TreasuryTag go wrong before, and how will those problems be prevented in the future? What constructive tasks does TreasuryTag seek to carry out? Is this unban request under the same editing restrictions suggested the last time around, or different ones? TreasuryTag has linked to the previous discussion, but I'm not sure that he's really taken to heart the concerns raised in it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Ten on this. As I wrote last time, I don't want evidence that he wants to edit. I want to see evidence that he feels this way: "I have a lot to offer, I seem to be upsetting a lot of people, sorry for the problems I've caused, I'd like to stop doing this, please help me" I have yet to see any such evidence. The closest the unblock request comes to this is the bland "I'm contrite". --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• For my part, I've currently got far too many people on my mentorship/adoption books to be taking on any more - I've already turned down other editors in the last week. However, like Floquenbeam, I was always unhappy with how my suggestion of an alternative to a block was closed as a ban discussion. I wasn't impressed with TT's impatience at the turn of the year, but the fact that he's done nothing (that I know of) for the past 10 weeks has really impressed me. I don't believe in making people grovel and wouldn't oppose an unblock. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Wait, what? What happened ten weeks ago? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Was just a rough guess as "length of time since his last unblock request". January December to mid March. Probably more accurately 7-8 over 12 weeks. er... his last ublock was december. I'm getting all my numbers mixed up... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  The linked unblock request – the one that precipitated TT's formal ban – is from October. Was there yet another unblock request in the interim? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  There was - it was the discussion based on TT's unblock request in December, which he links through. The AN discussion is here. I've added it to the top for clarity too. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Folks don't seek groveling, they seek a sincere recognition of the issues and commitment make a change regarding those. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  You're new here, eh? → ROUX ₪ 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Long story short, if folks saw that I'll bet there would be a consensus to let TT come back. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Unblock, unban, no restrictions, no mentorship, no hard feelings per WP:OFFER and WP:ROPE.--v/r - TP 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock and repeating my belief that Draconian solutions are not solutions as a rule. (I have supported some bans, but only for great reason) Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock and unban if and only if the current topic ban on initiating deletion procedures remains in place. Let's ease into this, shall we? 28bytes (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Opposed for the moment When users banned for long term poor interactions seek a return I would usually expect to see evidence that they understand what it was in their behaviour that led to the previous problems and a plan for how they would prevent those poor interactions reoccuring. Absent that we are simply asking them back to be banned again in a few months for exactly the same reason they got banned before. What we should see is a clear explanation from TT setting out his understanding of how his prior behaviour caused the poor interactions and a plan for how he will cope when faced with similar situations. If that hits the spot than we should release him. If it doesn't... well itc cruel to invite him back if we know in our heart of hearts that the issues haven't been resolved. No grovelling or apology required, just clarity and understanding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dweller and Spartaz. I'd like to see some evidence that he's explicitly acknowledged what caused the ban and that a firm statement from him that he plans to change it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock I think there was always general agreement that, unlike most perma-bans for simple trolls, TT was a valuable editor who also caused behavioural problems. If he's prepared to moderate his behaviour, then I'd welcome him back. There is no real way that he can demonstrate this other than by editing, so I think that he warrants and deserves a chance to show this. His behaviour was never like that of the voluminous trolls who are troublesome to clean up after, so what's the worst that could happen? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock perhaps with probationary topic ban on Dr. Who and AfD.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the Maunus addition - maybe a 3 month probationary topic ban from those areas, with a further discussion here after that time to lift it? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing to Oppose. I don't think TT is in any position to negotiate and should have the good grace to accept whatever restrictions were offered. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I'm also uncomfortable with the way the block turned into a de facto ban. TT has been a constructive contributor in the past, and though I am aware of the behaviour that led to the block, I think TT is too, and I think we should offer a chance to rejoin the project. If it should go wrong, it's easily fixed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  I should add that if TT is unblocked, I agree it should be with topic bans on Doctor Who and on AFD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for now per Ten. Unblocking with no restrictions and no understanding of what direction he's going to take upon unblock is a bad idea. Iff TT (and possibly a mentor) is willing to draw up an action plan - a plan for how to cope with disputes, a plan for what he wants to edit and how he plans to edit it, and a plan for who is going to be responsible for holding him to that plan - then it's possible a return to the community is workable. Vigorous oppose to a blanket unblock, no matter what TT promises. He's been unblocked many times before after promising to reform and behave, and he was never able to hold himself accountable - he needs to have someone doing that for him, and he needs to have a structured return to Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Switching to firm oppose per TT's attempts to refuse and then negotiate restrictions on his talk page. We're looking for a TT who understands why restrictions are necessary, not one who insists they'd cramp his style. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Important information That I tacked on to the end of the ban discussion, but which many users are still seemingly unaware of:

• TT had several name changes in their past, so their block log is a lot longer than was easily evident. Not including brief blocks for renaming purposes, it breaks down like this:

• twice as Circuit_Judge (talk · contribs)
• ten times as Rambutan (talk · contribs)
• five times as Porcupine (talk · contribs)
• seventeen times as Treasury Tag.

• That's thirty four blocks. So before everyone starts talking about second chances, let's get real, we are talking about a thirty fifth chance. I don't think TT is some kid who would have changed or matured drastically in the few months since the ban and the previous unblock requests. He's an adult, and one that has shown repeatedly that they can't get along in this environment. I Oppose an unban at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Unban/Unblock with restrictions Remove the ban/block but leave the restrictions in place. Based on what I recall about TT, the debates they were involved in were very much on the heat side of the light-heat spectrum. A set of restrictions (determined by unblocking admin and read as endorsed by the community) should be placed as a form of probation to allow TT to regain the confidence of the community (or to make a fine demonstration of WP:ROPE). Willing to AGF, but I would like to have a short circuit if we have to slam the breaks on again. Hasteur (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As before, I'm more than happy to have TT be given the standard offer, nothing more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Just checking, but since TT has been blocked since 5th October 2011, he hasn't edited for very nearly 6 months. He's not sockpuppeted, and he has agreed to not repeat the behaviour (albeit tenuously). There are certainly interpretations of WP:OFFER which matches that. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I wondered about that, but people who have accepted the standard offer aren't supposed to ask for their rights back early, and TT has done so twice now. Also, productive editing on other Wikis is looked on favorable during the period the standard offer is in effect - has TT done that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• This editor succeeded in driving Newyorkbrad nuts and exhausting his patience. In all my years of observing difficult editors on this site, I've never seen anyone else accomplish that feat. I'm sure there are decent reasons to consider a conditional unblock, and I'm all for charity and umpteenth chances, but it's hard to feel a sense of optimism here. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Unban, with probationary topic ban on Dr Who and AfD nominations for a period of months to be determined. Unbanning him is fine, but I don't think we should be letting his immediately go into the areas where he had problems before. Let's take it slow, get him to work on other stuff for a while, then we can reconsider whether to lift the topic ban. Silverseren^C 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox. Editor is a tendentious adult, apparently unwilling or unable to change. "I'm contrite" doesn't cut it. I want to see a full acknowledgement of every sort of past disruption and an avowal to cease same. Even then, then the notional unban should start with severely limited rights such as a topic ban in problem areas so that community trust can be rebuilt. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Editor is a tendentious adult" - where is this claim cited? Its not really an issue as anyone can change/improve/get it but if your claiming it where is it verifiable? Youreallycan 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's an opinion that I am stating—my own—formed from years of observation of TT's editing practices. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as an infrequent but longtime anonymous contributor to the project (longtime enough to be aware of both TT and the general "weight" with which anonymous editors' comments are given here), I am reminded of the ancient canard...

“ Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thirty-four times, and I must be a moderately-retarded hayseed idiot who deserves to be fooled and trolled into absolute oblivion ” — anonymous

As TT still has a bandwagon of enablers (who seem suspiciously coordinated in quickly "supporting" this theoretically spontaneous unblock request), the last clause in the quotation certainly seems to apply. Ironically, it's situations like these that completely squelch any and all desire to make more frequent contributions -- who the hell wants to consider themselves "part" of a community made up of such eagerly-fooled marks? 174.252.103.76 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting, your supporting in a kind of support for the demise of the en wikipedia project. Youreallycan 21:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I presume they made a mistake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• The support is offered in the spirit of "hey, if the hayseeds want to be fooled so badly, why stop them". Sorry for the confusion. 174.252.103.76 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be most amused if you considered me within that "bandwagon of TT enablers"! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - At this point, I don't see that the ban is accomplishing anything useful. Reyk _YO! 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Swarm ^X 21:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless it includes mentorship or some other serious conditions and a proper apology, why on earth you guys seriously believe that no conditions is sensible for the 35th unblock is beyond me. Why are we wasting our time here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unban for now, just to see what happens, and let me pre-emptively support ban for the anticipated future discussion about his editing privileges that I would expect he won't be able to help but provoke. If there is no such discussion, then everyone's happy Egg Centric 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose every three months an unblock request and a career of 34 prior blocks? I don't believe in miracles. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Infidel! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, just realistic! Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need some assurances that his behavior is going to change. Unconditional unblocking is inappropriate in this case, per Spartaz and others. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Who wants more of that drama? This is not a useful user (and I do not care about Dr Who). Per Beeblebrox, per Dweller; per the anon.76, who has a point, too. Alarbus (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Beeblebrox, Dweller, MastCell, et al. T. Canens (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:ROPE (read also WP:ROPE#When not to use, Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom), TT has tied his own knot and pulled his own strings that resulted in his own undoing, more than enough chance was given so enough is enough! Also, having so much BLOCKS is not akin to playing LEGO, may I remind you Gentlemen that this here is Wikipedia—an encyclopedia, and not some drama house for another dramamama to reside in. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Considering the extensive amount of blocks that even surprise someone like me, makes me think this user shouldnt be unblocked. Especially not with any kind of privileges. Ask yourselfs what are the chances of anything being different this 35th time? sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support  And start the six-month topic ban.  As per my comments the previous two times this discussion arose, 4 months is enough time for behavior change.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose too many chances, condition of the unban don't really fill me with confidence.--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I was considering supporting until I read it was his 35th block. Just too much. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I just can't bring myself to believe that TreasuryTag truly understands why they were blocked. I think that TT is indeed sorry for the block in that they want to edit and cannot, but without that key component of understanding why their behaviour was unacceptable any unblock will just be temporary and the disruption will begin again. How many times have we given TT a chance to prove us wrong only to end up right back here? No thank you. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with restrictions. Do not participate in any deletion discussion. Do not continue to engage with any other editor with whom you are in dispute. Do not defend yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Restrictions, topic bans & mentoring, it's all been tried before to no avail. I think we're better off without the drama, and I think Treasury will be better off when he manages to let go --Jac16888 ^Talk 01:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - There's only one way to see if a nearly 6-month block got the message across. If it didn't get the message across, then it won't be difficult to try a 1-year block after that. —SW— ^chat 02:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Most of my encounters with TT have been in AFD and what I have noticed, at least in that venue, is that he seems to be waging a war against "fanboys", Dr. Who fans in particular. Last September I gave him this advice. If unblocked, and if he is not restricted from participating in deletion discussions, then he needs to realize that "fanboys" are just editors who write about what interests them and when their contributions are up for deletion, they will show up to defend them. Sometimes their arguments will be good, sometimes not. What he needs to do is make the best arguments that he can and then sit back and see what happens. It's not necessary to rebut every "keep" argument in a deletion discussion. I know that's hard to to when your "opponents" are taking shots at you but this is when one has the golden opportunity to be the "better person" and not respond in kind. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban, which I think was completely out of proportion. Oppose unblock, because I get the impression he's just going through the motions, and telling us what we want to hear, and I don't see any evidence of a reformed character, merely "it's been a while, can I come back now". I'd like to see TT go six months (from his last edit before this appeal) without editing or appealing his block. Then I'd be willing to give it serious consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox. Seventeen blocks is too many already and was already in my mind before reading the discussion, but thirty-four blocks on the English Wikipedia is far too many to welcome back. Keegan (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Any positives from his edited were long overshadowed by the immense drama he brings on all fronts. I don't trust any restrictions on him, as I can't see him following them, otherwise he would've figured it out before block number 30. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wizardman and Jac16888. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral. Part of me admires the fact that TT is jumping through the hoops again, legitimately trying to be a part of the community. The other part of me sees the 30+ 15-18+ blocks, and the inability to stay here in the first place. Rope? Doc talk 05:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• What hoops? There's just this, a thin request without a plan. In the few days this thread has been up TT could have seen his way to presenting a plan for the future, to address many of the concerns expressed here. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, that diff would count as a hoop, by my meaning. By "hoops" in general, I mean even bothering to post things like unblock requests, because that is what banned editors are supposed to do if they want to have even a small prayer of getting unbanned. I am neutral here: I know of TT and have encountered them before, but I don't really know them or their history. I do see how this one is going to go, though: there will be no consensus to unblock. These things happen. Doc talk 07:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Thirty-four blocks?!?! I'm sorry, we're done here. Carrite (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• People are opposing because of 34 blocks, which while it's technically correct, a few of them were bad blocks by involved admins or later overtured, so blocks that were considered valid is way less. But still see the blocks that were made with some community consensus non-overturned is at least 15-20, making him one of the most blocked users in Wikipedia history. That's too much disruption and gaming the system from one editor Oppose. I might support later with a proper unblock/mentoring technique as he is more of a positive than a negative, which kept him from being banned until recently. Secret ^account 06:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Edit: Apparently I'm a complete idiot. Please disregard the following. 34 blocks is not correct in any sense whatsoever. There are 34 entries in the block log; this includes blocks, block modifications and unblocks. There are a grand total of 18 blocks. One block was overturned as inappropriate, and two others as outright errors, therefore the appropriate number of blocks to credit to this user is 15 (of those presumably-legitimate blocks, 8 were overturned). Not saying it's not still a lot, just that people are clearly misunderstanding the facts here. Swarm ^X 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 34 blocks includes those for his previous accounts. Treasury Tag has only had 17/18 blocks but previous accounts have had a large number as well.
  • And due to the fact that (certainly in the past) popular editors have had their blocks overturned at the drop of the hat I don't think we should be ignoring the ones that were overturned, but weren't outright errors. Even if we take the 34 and subtract 30% for errors its still going to be above and beyond what is a reasonable number of chances. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I've gone through the blocks and based on the block summary created a list of TreasuryTag's blocks and what happened. It appears by my count that there were actually 28 blocks, and 7 were inappropriate, leaving 21 blocks. I have combined block extensions for the same offence and counted his sockpuppetry block as 1 block. That's lower than 34, but higher than 15... Worm^TT · (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

21 second chances is still way too many. Frankly I think we, the community, failed in not bringing the hammer down sooner, and by apparently being less than thorough when examining his block log in the past. I can't imagine any other organization giving someone who has been kicked over 20 times another chance to come in and do it again after only leaving for a few months. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose TT has been blocked way too many times to be given the benefit of the doubt, and his reasons for being unbanned are hopelessly vague. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support but under clear mentoring and restrictions. Agathoclea (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock of anyone who thinks a perfunctory unblock request is sufficient after the vast amounts of time that have been spent in previous discussions. A request to reverse an indefinite block should involve some kind of plan. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support with conditions (NB I've said above I would not oppose, mind you don't double count this). I've been thinking about this overnight, and have done a little investigation this morning on TT's block log. TreasuryTag is a problematic user in certain areas, as Ron Ritzman rightly points out, those to do with "fanboys". This means that certain topics, like Doctor Who or areas like AfD, do lead to him being disruptive and he doesn't know when to stop. Having said that, when I looked through his work in the past, I found an enthusiastic editor that does bring a lot of positive work to the encyclopedia, and I'd like that good work back. As such, I'd like to see a way that TT could be unblocked
  Above, I say that I don't like grovelling, and suggestions that he list everything that he's ever done wrong and commit to not doing them again sounds far too much like grovelling. However, "I am contrite" seems a little too much like going through the motions, as HJ Mitchell rightly points out. I would like to see something more from TT, acknowledgement that he has made mistakes and a general idea of how he's hoping to not make those mistakes in the future. Even then, I think an unblock should have conditions attached.
  TT has in the past shown that he's willing to game conditions, so these conditions should be clear as day. For example, a clear topic ban from AfD, a topic ban from Doctor Who (broadly construed) and maybe even a topic ban from all Popular Culture articles (including television, radio and fan universe areas). Someone else would be able to write a better set of conditions than I, but the point is they should be broad and clear. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to give him a chance to !vote in AFDs as long as he's able to say his peace and walk away. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Worm - no point in me writing all that out again. Peridon (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled be a comment above by BabbaQ linking TT with 'administrator privileges'. I can't find that TT ever had them. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the comment. Peridon (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have modified my comment a bit after your mention, I was the one misunderstanding that. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. WTT said above "the fact that he's done nothing (that I know of) for the past 10 weeks has really impressed me.". I'll be impressed when that number is multiplied by 5. Leaky Caldron 11:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any evidence that the problems that caused the current block to be imposed will not recur. TT has said in his unblock request (or his previous one) that there are lots of edits which he wants to make, that he hasn't acted inappropriately while blocked, and that it's been a while since the block was imposed. None of this is especially persuasive given the extensive prior history of problematic behaviour. Hut 8.5 15:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – There needs to be something in place which will guarantee that TT will behave differently in the future. (e.g. a credible promise from him or a negotiated restriction). Otherwise we should expect a rerun of the past problems. The list here shows 28 blocks, though I assume some might be excused. When a person gets up above two dozen blocks we should be looking for ironclad guarantees. At this rate, in the remainder of 2012 the editor will have six more blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look at that detailed list it is actually pretty damning. Look how many times blocks on him were ended "by agreement" only to see him blocked again later. How can we be expected to trust any promise he makes when we have such a list of broken promises already? And the problem got worse not better, the more times he was blocked, the more he agreed to unblock conditions that he didn't abide by. I think we need at least a one year break from TT's drama-inducing disruption before we even consider overturning the block/ban, and even then there would need to be strict conditions with a "sudden death" clause for violating them, not the "escalating blocks" approach that so utterly failed to curb problematic behaviors in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I already voted not yet but I reviewed per the above and I'm horrified how much enabling has gone one. The clear lesson is that TT is great at contrition when they have been blocked but the problems never seem to be solved afterward. I suspect that this should be a case of NOTEVER but right now, unblocking without a proper plan is a really really really bad idea. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair the "escalating blocks" approach has never really been attempted. From the Worm's list the longest TT was ever blocked for before was a week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There have been plenty of chances already, and if there is a return, TT should be more specific about how trouble will be avoided. Perhaps by giving a plan of what Wikipedia work will be done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support with conditions and/or topic bans per WormTT. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Alison blocked one of his accounts in 2007 for "Incivility. Revert-warring. Filing vexatious ANI reports. WP:Point infractions, etc". What's changed? That sounds like the way he acted last year. SS, DD. -- Dianna (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose 34 rounds of WP:DRAMA and WP:THERAPY for TT is more than enough. A 35th is not necessary. MarnetteD | Talk 01:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: An editor with a problematic record as long as this one can only be considered for reinstatement if the pluses outway the minuses. One way that this can be determined is if the editor is able to identify what the minuses have been that caused them to be indeffed, and what they intend to do differently in the future to avoid similar problems. In this case, I don't see anything to suggest that that there has been any insight that will prevent future problems. A request for unblocking that could get my support would be one that includes an acknowledgement of what went wrong in the past (no grovelling is required, just a statement of what was by consensus inappropriate in the past) and a very precise, very specific plan for what they do intend to do the future that would be different.--Slp1 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. He has stated "I understand that I caused a lot of problems, understand how it happened, and fully intend to stop it from happening again. ....... I've discovered new areas of editing to go into which are (a) away from my past fault-lines." Maybe that meets your requirements? Moriori (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Generalized statements of this sort give no sign that there is any specific insight into what the real issues are. One might give the benefit of the doubt to a new editor but after so many blocks and so many very general promises of 'reform', the project needs more concrete evidence that things have changed.Slp1 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And the only way he can demonstrate that is by.............Moriori (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already stated this: an acknowledgement of what went wrong in the past (no grovelling is required, just a statement of what was by consensus inappropriate in the past) and a very precise, very specific plan for what they do intend to do the future that would be different. There is has been no specific description of what has gone wrong or what would be done differently in the future, which at this point, with this many blocks, and this many vague promises of reform, is absolutely a sine qua non. --Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What? TT stated I ....understand how it happened, and fully intend to stop it from happening again....." and you say there "has has been no specific description of what has gone wrong or what would be done differently in the future." On the first point, you are allowed to read edit histories, and on the second you might AGF when a chastened editor says he fully understands how it all went wrong and intends to prevent it happening again. We won't damage the project by unblocking him (he'd be zapped at the first sign of trouble) but we would be hurting the project by not letting a competent editor edit. Moriori (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, after so many blocks and so many unblocks on the promise of understanding the issues, it is not unreasonable, or failing to AGF, to expect more than general "I did wrong" statements and promises of reform. Let's hear the specifics.--Slp1 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are specifics -- TT stated "I understand that I caused a lot of problems, understand how it happened, and fully intend to stop it from happening again. ....... I've discovered new areas of editing to go into which are (a) away from my past fault-lines." Why can't you deal with the present, instead of the past.Moriori (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not specific. Would you vote for a politician who made promises like that? Wouldn't you like to know some specifics of what the politician planned to do, and how they intended to avoid future problems? Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I already know the specifics of what TT has stated and promised. He accepts he caused problems, he knows why, he won't do it again, and has new areas to edit in. I am not obliged to AGF Romney or Gingrich, but, hard as it is, I am obliged to AGF TT. So I do, but also in the knowledge that if this unblock request is successful, TT's future on this site is totally in his hands and if he doesn't shape up he instantly ships out permanently. I will even do the block myself. Moriori (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, with proviso that any future transgression would be his last. Moriori (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Why not? This new scenario reminds me of the quintessential scene from a spaghetti western. The stranger comes to town and makes the requisite stop at the local saloon. Once s/he makes an entrance everyone reaches for their holster. Seriously now, who would think that the stranger would make any rush moves? Having said that, we may have to assign a sheriff, sorry, a mentor and a few restrictions just in case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest an alternative view based on the same scenario: after very many incidents at the saloon and elsewhere, the saloon patrons and other townsfolk decide to blackball a disruptive element who has shown no insight their problems and to whom the opinions of various and sundry sheriffs have had no impact. Slp1 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you would be the kind of sheriff who would gather a posse and wait for the outlaw at the city limits so that he never gets the chance to go to the saloon. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What for objecting to stopping someone entering the bar after being banned temporarily 25 times? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The times I've seen TT in action he's been rude and obnoxious to the point of disrupting the project. We don't need that kind of editor here any more, and he's had ample chances to change his ways, no matter how you count his blocks. Enough. --JaGa^talk 05:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - it appears clear to me at this time that unblocking would be just getting the same disruptive contributor back. - Youreallycan 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. What reasonable organization would accept a person with these behavior problems as a volunteer? He'd be turned away at the door. He wouldn't be welcomed in with, "This guy has trouble written all over him. Let's let him volunteer anyway, and have six other volunteers use their valuable time babysitting him." We at least gave him a shot. Many shots. We need to get out of the business of hosting this kind of volunteer. --Laser brain (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Laserbrain, spare us the headaches of accepting this guy back into the fold. When you have over three dozen blocks to your name - whether or not it was slapped on socks - that's when the community should stand firm against welcoming back such a disgrace. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Laserbrain, highly likely to be a waste of time given TT's lack of insight, as he'll be at the centre of some time-consuming drama or other sooner rather than later. I do hope if he does come back that I am proved wrong but I doubt it based on what I have seen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. My reserves of good faith for this user ran dry a long time ago. I am not convinced that he understands what was wrong about his behaviour, and see no reason from his previous history to believe he would not return to the same old ways if unblocked. Let's try learning from experience here. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Laserbrain. It seems very unlikely to me that much has changed. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per per Beeblebrox. (The improvement in discourse on ANI without TT contributions is significant and palpable.) Nobody Ent 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No consensus

On a quick assessment - a lot of people hold an opinion about this request - slightly more in the oppose position, approx 30/24 - the only chance it seems that TT has of turning this around at this time would be, as many have opined, if he provided a more detailed unblock request, perhaps including an acknowledgment of what went wrong in the past (no grovelling) and a precise, specific plan for how and where he intends to contribute, and what he intends to do the future that would be different than previously. I am surprised he hasn't expounded his intentions a bit more having seen some of the opposing comments. Youreallycan 17:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing restrictions and mentoring

Several editors above supported unban/unblock, on the basis of editing restrictions, such as deletion in broad or narrow sense, or topic ban from Doctor Who.

Please note that when I offered to mentor Treasury Tag in October 2011, I proposed four temporary ("I wouldn't expect the restrictions to be in place long" were my words) restrictions.

The proposed restrictions included "Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so." and "Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who". I also suggested "Don't edit anything in projectspace.", which was supposed to cover a number of flashpoints, including but not limited to XfDs. Finally, I proposed "Don't write any whole words in edit summaries", which was designed to stop him from his incendiary use of edit summaries, which was very much stoking the heat.

TreasuryTag's response was ""Absolutely not agreed" to each one of the four proposed restrictions. This may give pause for thought for those keen on restrictions.

I had what I'd like to think of as success mentoring TT some years ago, but was deeply concerned by the tone of his rejection of the offer last year, as it implied the exercise was doomed to failure. If Treasury Tag is now prepared to unconditionally accept my four proposed temporary restrictions, I'd be prepared to once more offer to mentor him, even though I am sceptical of the chances of success. I'd also switch to support of unban and unblock. As usual, if this went ahead but I couldn't succeed with mentoring, I'd come back here and say so. --Dweller (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This response from TT makes me think that the user isnt willing to agree to all conditions of an unblock that is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that response, rejection really, of Dweller's offer says to me, we are finished here and we should close this with another WP:standard offer (ask again in six months) to the user. IMO if he continues with his position, of I want to edit again its been three months now, there will never be consensus for his unblocking and he might as well not ask again.Youreallycan 21:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, based on TT's response, this proposal is a total no-go, and really that ought to close the book on any unban discussion - it would be irrational to unban someone who states openly that they're not willing to agree to simple restrictions intended to keep them out of areas that have been problematic for them in the past. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The sad thing is that TT is "shooting himself in the foot" basically by not agreeing to all the conditions for a possible unblock. In my book atleast TT has to be blocked for another six months before he can possibly ask for another chance to join the Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• (The following copied from TT's Talk page... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

I'm a bit pressed for time but here's a brief comment: Dweller has proposed four conditions. No Doctor Who editing – I'll accept this condition if we can agree on a time-limit. No deletion nominations – I'm 'currently' topic-banned from deletion nominations for six months after being unblocked, so I trust Dweller will find this satisfactory. No editing of Wikipedia: space – sorry, no, I think it's important for me to be able to interact, comment on XfDs, enter discussions on noticeboards and at the Village Pump, !vote in RfAs and so on. No whole words in edit-summaries – no because it would disrupt Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Further remark: just think about how these restrictions would work. I'd remove some content from an article, say because it was original research, and be banned from leaving an edit-summary. Another editor wonders why I did it. They look at my contributions and see that I've done the same thing on other pages. They report me to WP:ANI. But I can't respond there.
How is this helpful to anybody? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rem - WP:OR - if you had accepted these conditions and been unblocked under these conditions your mentor would have dealt with the ANI report and asked you for comments if and when you would be required to reply. Youreallycan 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, would you be willing to re-work the "whole word" restriction? Folks have a point that "remove original research" would be fine but "rm stpdty" wouldn't be. The goal (I assume) is for friendly, or at least non-confrontational edit summaries; the brevity or wordiness is orthogonal to that, I think. 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the "no WP edits" restriction, TT, come on, work with us here. You have enough opposition from people who think you shouldn't be let back under any circumstances, at least show the "maybe, if" folks you're willing to meet them 3/4th of the way. 28bytes (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries: of course. See next section. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your flexibility, and your offer to (re-)mentor. 28bytes (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

According to TT's talkpage, he is now willing to accept the first two proposals, and negotiate on the third (the editing restrictions thing I think we'll need to change anyway). I would suggest that a fair compromise on the third may be that he is allowed to edit in projectspace, but not to comment on any other users, broadly construed, nor to criticise their ideas, again broadly construed. Thoughts? Egg Centric 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am quite certain that my earlier suggested restrictions are important. “Do not participate in any deletion discussion.” This means that he cannot nominate, participate, support or oppose. He’ll just have to trust the community. Deletion discussions too easily become combative affairs. Combative participants put off calmer participants from continuing to participate. I have no doubt that TT has more to offer the project, but I very strongly doubt that he’ll show it in deletion discussions. If TT can’t agree to this, then the answer should be “no”.

I don’t think “mentoring” is appropriate. “Mentoring” is for junior members of the society. He needs a probation officer, not a mentor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

On edit restrictions

I think Mr. Tag is entirely correct that banning him from making whole word edit summaries would disrupt wikipedia. I do agree that he loves an inappropriate edit summary, but for goodness sake stop him from making those, not from using whole words. A more sensible restriction would be something like no edit summaries that comment on other contributors, broadly construed, and no edit summaries that suggest an article violated any particular policy (but edit summaries that suggest implementing a policy are acceptable EXCEPT when reverting). Indeed, maybe no reverts should be permitted except of clear vandalism. Egg Centric 21:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we will have to make a decision about that. Atleast not for another six months.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe but it seems a shame to give up on him. If he gets turned down this time if he has any sense he'll just create a new account, anyway. If he's genuinely changed then no one would notice. Certainly if I were in his position, including thinking like I believe he thinks, I would wonder why I should stop contributing to a worthy project just cause of what, circa thirty users saying I shouldn't? For this process to have meaning, he has to believe there is a chance he can redeem himself.

Who knows, perhaps consensus will change. This thread has not been around that long. Egg Centric 22:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary proposal was by far the least important. And there are constructive ways to progress a discussion about a problematic suggestion and there are unconstructive ways. Sensible discussion could have easily resolved any problems. Absolutes revealed an attitude problem. --Dweller (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I don't actually understand what "not using whole words" means - should he only use half words, or morse code? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think (it's some months ago, and I'm tired) I hadn't fully formed the idea when I posted it, but had in mind that restricting to summaries such as "rvv", "r" (the convention for reply) etc would mean reduced chance of extra problems while we had a chance to discuss the use of edit summaries and how to avoid trouble... before removing the restriction with caution. The absolute replies prevented any chance of furthering the conversation. I seem to recall that I didn't want to put the restrictions up front, but to come to them during the mentoring, but TT forced my hand by declining mentoring without knowing what the restrictions would be. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I get you now, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• (The following copied from TT's Talk page... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

My point about no-full-words-in-edit-summaries is this: I'm not aware that anybody has ever complained about my edit-summaries on the grounds that they're written in proper English (though I stand to be corrected on this front). The complaints have usually been about abrasive languages, sarcasm, insinuations etc. Therefore, a sensible restriction would focus on those issues rather than on something completely irrelevant, namely the length of words being used. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• [55] TT forced my hand by declining mentoring without knowing what the restrictions would be. I'm sorry, but that is not at all what happened. As is clear from the diff Dweller provided, I said, "If you can propose some specific restrictions then I'd be able to comment." Then Dweller proposed his specific restrictions, which I then declined. Dweller's statement just now is simply untrue.
  Meanwhile, as I've said, I am now willing/required to accept the first two propsals. The fourth proposal seems not to be impressing the community anyway. And I'm happy to negotiate on the third one. How does that sound as a starting-point? ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it seems like TT is still as argumentative as ever.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This kind of Wikilawyering in attempting to negotiate his restrictions is precisely the kind of behavior which got him banned in the first place. It does not seem that TT is really capable of any other kind of behavior when pressed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for an unblock, not sure why we're discussing restrictions at all here.Restrictions should be discussed prior to a proposal to unblock, with the proposal including those discussed restrictions. As this proposal really hasn't gained traction, I'd recommend coming back in a few months after hammering out restrictions and proposing those.--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, this unblock request was for one without restrictions - many editors, including myself, have suggested restrictions but there is no consensus on what they should be. For one thing, TT seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that he can pick and choose said restrictions or put a time limit on them, I don't see that happening. To me, this request looks like it should be closed as no consensus - a handful editors should decide on proposed restrictions, explain them to TT, ensure he'd accept them and then it should be brought back here. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

User Worm, I admire your optimism concerning the user. But in my personal opinion TT has proven that he is not yet ready to be let back into the Wikipedia community. And by that I mean that TT should be banned for another six months then let TT make a new statement on his willingness to agree to all conditions of his unblock. For me, it is quite evident that TT needs more time away from Wikipedia to think about what he needs to change in his behaviour to return. That is just my take on the situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Also even more opposes for unblocking TT has come in over night on the discussion so for me this is also starting to look somewhat like a small consensus not to unblock TT.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, despite my remarks here I always try to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that I might be mistaken. However, as this conversation has progressed and we've seen the detailed list of how and why TT has been blocked and negotiated unblock so many times, coupled with his responses to the proposals for restrictions upon his return have made me even more convinced that this is not something we want to do. TT is not completely to blame for the arrogance he is displaying, we enabled it by letting him talk his way back in so many times. Let's not make that same mistake again. Close this up, and revisit in six months, minimum. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough already - proposing a moratorium on further ban appeals by TreasuryTag

This is the third unblock request in five months. Each request absorbs some time and attention from the — what, fifty or sixty? – editors who look in to each request and offer their comments, suggestions, and advice. Each time, it is apparent that TreasuryTag – on his own, or with mentor candidates – has failed to put forward his own time and effort commensurate with the effort his requests demand of the community. This ongoing lack of respect for, or awareness of, the work of others is seriously problematic.

Having been clearly informed twice previously that the community would have strong reservations about an unrestricted unblocking/unbanning, TreasuryTag should have had no reason whatsoever to expect such a request to succeed—and yet, here we are. (Incidentally, I am also rather disappointed in the judgement demonstrated by Worm That Turned. WormTT has been heavily involved in the previous requests, and had in past offered to mentor TreasuryTag. WormTT should have recognized the flaws in the current unblock request, and counselled TreasuryTag against proceeding, instead of immediately copying TreasuryTag's unblock request over to this noticeboard. This was the worst sort of 'help' that WormTT could have offered in the circumstances, and strongly disinclines me to support any future unblock request that would include WormTT as a mentor.)

Editing restrictions are an afterthought to the above request, rather than a carefully-considered core element. After it became apparent that the unblock had been thoroughly rejected, TreasuryTag has grudgingly acknowledged that he might consider some of the suggested editing restrictions, telling us that he is "...now willing/required to accept the first two propsals...". (Not "willing", but "willing/required"; while I don't ever expect an editor to grovel, TreasuryTag goes out of his way to avoid evincing even the tiniest shred of humility or flexibility.)

In his last unblock request (which was included explicitly by reference in this request), he declared, "... I've been racking up a lot of edits I want to make. Edits that need to be made. Not controversial; not deletion-related; not Doctor Who-related – completely free of the areas where I seem to have generated trouble in the past...." Despite repeated direct requests, TreasuryTag still has not told us where he wishes to edit if he is allowed to return. What are those magic trouble-free, uncontroversial edits that 'need to be made'? Instead, we are given mixed messages about his intent to avoid conflict; he says he'll respect his existing ban from initiating AfDs, but doesn't want to face a Wikipedia namespace ban because it would bar him from all deletion discussions. Indeed, "...it's important for [him] to be able to...comment on XfDs,... !vote in RfAs...". No, it really isn't. 'Important to TreasuryTag' is not necessarily 'important to Wikipedia', and that distinction seems totally lost to him.

Consequently, I propose a ban from further unblock requests to last at least six months. The clock would be reset by any premature requests or by any form of block/ban evasion.

• Support as proposer. I would also endorse twelve months or any longer period acceptable to the community. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Hits the nail on the head. Leaky Caldron 18:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose- I agree that TT's unblock requests so far have been lacking, but I don't agree they have been so bad that they necessitate further punishment. Reyk _YO! 19:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a punishment, it's a break for the rest of us from having to do this all over again every month. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support The vague promises and arrogance of the current requests, suggesting that is is important that he be allowed to return to disrupting WP space as he did so often in the past because it is important for him to be able to do so make it clear that exactly nothing has changed and TT is still unable/unwilling to actually admit their own mistakes except in the most nebulous way that provides no assurance the problematic behaviors won't be repeated. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support and I agree this is not a punishment, but it is a good assessment of where we are at with TT. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per above, per all the stuff way above. Suggest that TT is restricted from making another request in calendar year 2012. Come 2013 he can try again. → ROUX ₪ 19:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Ten of Trades lays the case out well and Beeblebrox has it right nothing has changed. We should stop enabling TT's enjoyment of WikiDrama. I also support at least a 12 month ban. MarnetteD | Talk 19:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I would support a ban on requesting unblock until January 1, 2013. But if community consensus is six months which I think has proven to be unsuccessfull then its OK too.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support no more unblock requests should be made from Treasury Tag until 2013 - we shouldn't be wasting our time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose His requests "demand" nothing of the community. Each editor is responsible for the time they spend on Wikipedia. A grain of sand does not become a pearl without an oyster. Just apply standard offer and learn how to say no more succinctly.Nobody Ent 20:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless these discussions become much more clear cut in opposition I don't think that's possible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Then it's unlikely this will pass isn't it? Nobody Ent 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Per Beeblebrox below it would basically need to be a snow closure for the discussions to be appropriately short. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the appeals aren't sufficiently disruptive to require them to be banned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This goes against the very principles that indefinite =/= permanent and that blocking isn't punitive. I count 39 in opposition to unblocking at this time, and 25 in support. The difference isn't remotely enough to justify such drastic stifling of discussion. Both unban requests have been started by a single administrator. If you have a problem, talk to him. Ask him to stop starting these discussions. Don't try to lay down a blanket restriction on what we can and can't discuss. Swarm ^X 20:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not really fair though, is it? TT was banned by community consensus. Therefore, any appeal he makes must be discussed by the community before he can be unbanned. You can't blame the admin who opened these threads for doing what they are supposed to do in such circumstances, it is TT who is initiating these discussions and deciding on their timing, and that is what this new proposal seeks to change. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that users here understands that we are not seeking to ban TT outright but banning the user from asking for another review of his block atleast for another six months. So we dont have to make a new thread about this in a few weeks time again which will only result in No consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing in the appeal that is inherently disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support I support this proposal because it is the response which is kindest to TT. There needs to be a clear message that has some chance of being received, and the AGF editors who are supporting an unblock or opposing this restrictiion are creating the conditions that cause TT to believe that apart from a hiccup regarding its length, this block is no different from all the others. However, that is not correct, and TT needs to do more than wait. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Why can't he just stop and pursue more productive ventures than trying to appeal his ban, like concentrating on a day job, perhaps? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, the poor guy comes into the saloon and just by saying "hi y'all" while at the entrance, someone shoots him down because he spoke too much. Let the guy elaborate on his plans a little more. We said "no grovelling" on his part was required. But as soon as he said he wanted a modest negotiation we took it as a sign of defiance and shot him down. If we don't allow him a modest amount of breathing space what we really demand is absolute surrender from him. In other words the very grovelling we said we don't want. This is inconsistent. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue with your analogy is that he has come into the saloon after being banned over 20 times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Standard offer needs to pass before TT has a chance to return, especially considering how poorly he's handled this request. (Negotiating terms, really?) Putting too-soon requests on hold will help, not hurt, TT's future chances. --JaGa^talk 05:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We shouldn't need to waste time discussing this every other month. T. Canens (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support This seems a no-brainer in the circumstances Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Excuse me? I don't believe I've done anything wrong here. TreasuryTag was indefinitely blocked nearly 6 months ago. I offered to mentor him when TT rejected another mentorship, a major factor in his indef blocking. Once I had agreement, I took it to the community and consensus was to leave him blocked. It wasn't unanimous, many editors suggested I should be allowed to have a go. When it was rejected, TT stopped listening to my advice and contacted multiple admins in December to get another unblock attempt. Not only did I not start TT's second unban request I actively opposed it. This request fits under WP:OFFER, 6 months since block, no sockpuppeting and a commitment to not repeat the behaviour. I copied it across and whilst there is not consensus for unblocking, it is again contentious. I'm willing to discuss my actions here, but since I'm not offering mentorship and a reasonable period had passed - copying to AN seemed like the right option. Regarding the proposal, I would Support TT not being able to make appeals more than annually. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, a reminder about WP:Standard offer is enough without applying draconian restrictions. - Youreallycan 08:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No consensus - motion to close

As is already visible, I can't see there ever being consensus for this. IMO it's time to close this as no consensus to unblock at this time. The user would do well to read all the comments here, and take them on-board. If they still feel a desire to contribute in the future, perhaps working via email over the next few months with their informal mentor to formalize a request that would be more acceptable to more of the people that have opposed in this thread would be beneficial to a future unblock request. Youreallycan 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's time to close this one as No consensus to unblock.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this appeal should be denied as no consensus. My feeling is that if TT were to agree to accept, right now, with no negotiated changes, the normal standard offer, do some productive and non-controversial editing on another wiki in that time period, not make any more premature requests for unblock, and return here in 6 months, it is much more likely that he will be accepted back. I've got no direct line to the Wikipedia community's zeitgeist, but I do think that's the pathway that's open to him now. If he's serious about wanting to come back, then the sacrifice and the wait should be worthwhile to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It now looks more like a consensus to not unban TT than 'no consensus'. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I was just gonna say. There's recently been some pussy-footing around with closing things as no consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think pussy-footing and declaring stuff as no-consensus when it isn't is bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly clear consensus to keep blocked, if not banned. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock Ticket Request System Deployment

With the close of this RFC, we are deploying the Unblock Ticket Request System. This system is not intended to replace the {{unblock}} template on user talk pages nor the ban appeals sub committee. It is only meant to replace the aging and unmanageable unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. The UTRS Tool will greatly improve administrators capability to track and respond to appeals swiftly and accurately. There is a new IRC channel on freenode at #wikipedia-en-utrs ^connect that is currently available to assist in notification and tracking of these tickets. If you are an administrator and are interested in helping out, please request an account at tools:~unblock/register.php. Once again, thanks for all of the support so far, we hope to make this a very successful tool.--v/r - TP 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The templates and guidelines have been updated. Please put some eyes on this tool.--v/r - TP 01:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about a template for "Please request unblocking on your user talk page first"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we can look into doing that. If you have proposed verbage, can you open a JIRA ticket? The link is at the top of the UTRS system.--v/r - TP 17:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all the developers. I was handled a couple requests on unblock-en-l, but was unable to keep track of all the conversations going at once. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

Hello. A few days ago Fastily deleted Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test as "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". I'm requesting it be undeleted, as the deletion has clearly not been "non-controversial" and the page was serving a useful purpose (I'm not an admin, but I understand it was a draft for an article that was inline with Help:Talkspace draft). Discussion is at User talk:Fastily#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test. Basically, the IP who had been working on the page has been told by Fastily and Bwilkins that it will only be restored if the IP creates an account so it can be userfied. Normally I would take something like this to DRV, but it looks so clear-cut from my perspective (not "non-controversial" and the page is inline with what the help page suggests), that I think the seven days that DRV generally takes would be excessive. Thanks for your time. Jenks24 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have already been restored by 28bytes and userfied to your userspace. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. You can find it at User:Jenks24/List of Negro league baseball players. 28bytes (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was standard practice to sandbox new drafts of an article at Talk:ArticleName/draft or Talk:ArticleName/test. Not sure why it's an issue in this case but it can be just as easily worked on in userspace, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was standard practice as well. Anyway, I don't mind having it in my userspace as long as it's OK with the IP. Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When are these inappropriate deletions by Fastily going to stop? It's becoming thoroughly frustrating to see so many pages speedy deleted when they blatantly don't qualify. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why did it "blatantly not qualify"? It hadn't been touched for a month and a half, so it obviously wasn't serving as a talkpage draft. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said at Fastily's talk page, I don't think there was anything wrong with his deletion (many admins probably would have made a similar call), I just think he should have undeleted it when asked. Sarek, if you look at the histories of List of Negro league baseball players (A–D), List of Negro league baseball players (E–L), List of Negro league baseball players (M–R), and List of Negro league baseball players (S–Z), I think you can see that the IP has been working on completing these draft pages and getting them into mainspace, so it definitely was serving as a draft (though I can understand how that could easily be missed at first glance). Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy basis that I'm aware of for deleting talk page drafts (however old), much less speedy deleting them without discussion. Help:Talkspace draft says that even "drafts that are rejected should generally still be kept" or at least userfied. I just userfied it to try to nip the potential drama in the bud, but really, I'm not seeing a policy basis for refusing to restore it after the deletion was contested. IPs are indeed allowed to work on talk page drafts, even if it takes them a long time to finish. 28bytes (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedying a talk page draft, however old, is not a useful application of G6. Talk page drafts can be archived with Template:Talkspace draft if stale. Policy or guideline discussions on userpage vs. talk page drafts are best dealt with systemically as opposed to speedying talk page drafts ad hoc. I think it is reasonable to keep this one in talk space as opposed to the userpage of someone who has not contributed to the draft. It should go to MfD if anyone thinks it should be deleted -- Samir 05:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• What would be useful is if the IP could identify the goal of the draft so it could be titled more appropriately than just /test. I've asked this at WP:REFUND -- Samir 06:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

another day another bad deletion by fastily. As has been pointed out there doesn't seem to be any policy based rationale for any of the action he took. I must say my concern of the direction his editing is taking is growing.--Crossmr (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe I took the most logical action at the time. The draft had remained untouched for a little over a month, so I assumed that the page was merely an abandoned draft and deleted it (presumably) uncontroversially, based on the tag that was placed on the page. When the IP contested the deletion on my talk page, I advised them to create an account for the sake of consistency (because not only does the anon edit on a dynamic IP, but also because drafts are typically found in one's userspace subpages), which, IMHO, is not a terribly unreasonable request. Without bothering to consult me further, the IP proceeded to seek out others' opinions at WP:REFUND, so I considered the matter to be out of my hands, and therefore closed on my end. Since this deletion has obviously turned out to controversial, I wish to make it clear that I no longer endorse my deletion and will support whatever action the community ultimately decides (or has decided) to take. Also, Crossmr, I'd like to kindly ask you to stop rehashing and selectively quoting my words to make the actions I take appear malicious and egregiously inappropriate when they just simply aren't. I delete many pages everyday, and being human, I will inevitably make the occasional mistake. I'm more than happy to own up to my mistakes, and in fact, I frequently do, so again, please stop purporting me as the criminal. I trust we're here for the same reason, which is to amicably build an encyclopedia, so can we please do that? Honestly, every time someone has brought me to AN/ANI as of late, it has always turned out to be a tempest in a teacup :( I've found that working CSD/XfD doesn't make one popular, and often, users who claim that you've wronged them tend to pile on threads, such as this one, with their own beef, despite it being fully irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm disappointed. I try my best to keep backlogs at CSD/FfD/PuF low, spend hours working on it, and only recognition I receive for my efforts are spurious trips to AN. Is this how we reward on Wikipedia? I have a fairly high tolerance for harassment/hate/rudeness/dickishness/ect., but even I have my limits, and guys, I'm feeling burnt out. I've thought about it, and I have to agree with this quote: "The only way to avoid problems on Wikipedia is to do nothing at all". So true. -sigh- -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't view this deletion as egregious on your part. It was hard to make out what the article was in the state that you deleted it. I can see the challenge in reviewing that CSD. But once it became clear that this was a draft in talkspace that a contributor was intent on working on, it should have been undeleted (not userfied) either by yourself after request at your talk page or at WP:REFUND, where the IP got a perplexing runaround. It's now been done, so the issue is moot. Will mark as resolved above. -- Samir 11:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ack, this got closed while I was commenting over at REFUND. I was going to move on, but I have to correct something above. Fastily stated "Without bothering to consult me further, the IP proceeded to seek out others' opinions at WP:REFUND...." That is false. I posted a follow-up request to his response at 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC), I received no response despite him answering 2 or 3 other posts on his talk page. I waited 22 hours and 49 minutes before opening a REFUND request at 11:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC), and notified him 2 minutes later. So no, I did in fact consult him further. Regardless, the matter is closed, so thanks for the help in restoring the page, I do appreciate it. Rgrds, (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.64 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, when I hit save I noticed he linked "seek out others' opinions" to WP:FORUMSHOP. FORUMSHOP! The freaking directions instruct me to go to REFUND after I consult the deleting admin. How deceitful. --64.85.216.64 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 64.***, you are entirely justified in being offended by the way you've been treated here, and the link to FORUMSHOP is the icing on the cake. If they weren't so time consuming, and such drama magnets, and so unlikely to end in a useful way, I'd say it was probably time for a WP:RFC/ADMIN. However, regardless of whether an RFC is in order or not, nothing much can be done at WP:AN, so i haven't changed the {{resolved}} tag up top. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop walking away in the middle of discussions then. If you refuse to participate in on-going discussions regarding your behaviour, we have little else to reference except previous statements you've made. Did you or did you not state in early February that a thread about you from December 2011 was "Extremely old" and dismiss it based on that reasoning alone? If I've somehow misinterpreted that comment, feel free to correct, but I did ask you at that time about that statement and you refused to engage in any further discussion after you made it. In fact people continued to discuss you for 3 weeks after your last comment to that thread and you didn't once return to address any of the concerns raised there. As it is here, it seems you've gone ahead and misrepresented the IP's edits. You want to tell us exactly how it is that he took it to refund without first consulting you? [56]. Here he consults you, here he [57] takes it to review. You want to look at those time stamps and honestly say he didn't consult you first before taking it to review? So far we've got 2 months as "Extremely old" and somehow March 18 comes before March 17th. Wow.--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag. when someone interfere's with the proper operation of Wikipedia by treating new editors improperly, and giving them directions that set them going in circles, we can take action. 64*** is to be congratulated on the determination to persist in this--most editors would not have done so. As failure to respond to questions is the responsibility of any editor, it's not purely an admin role, & is also in our jurisdiction. Most of Fastily's deletions are excellent, but perhaps he should do other work for a month or two to regain perspective. The rest of us can fill the gap meanwhile. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Fastily/Archive 5#Break. He decided to go on a break a bit after posting his comment here. Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing it. I'm relieved to say that he and I agree on the best course to take. I'm restoring the resolved tag I removed, as this does indeed resolve the issue. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but the blind cheerleading and bad faith accusations there really don't help this situation or fastily. This is a pattern we've seen before. There is nothing frivolous about someone insinuating that someone is forum shopping by taking something to an official noticeboard without consulting them when the evidence is clearly there that he was consulted nearly 24 hours before it was taken there.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Next biography article

I just finished the biography here and am looking for a next topic to write about. I'm interested in biographies on notable artists/entertainers. OK, here's why I'm posting here. I would like to write or improve an artist/entertainer biography article for someone who has tried to add their own info to Wikipedia, but has been unsuccessful or are struggling due to their conflict of interest (e.g., being the subject of the article). You may have come across someone like this in your admin efforts. By developing such an article, I think I can help improve the encyclopedia while helping you with your efforts. If you know of such a topic, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. Thanks! -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors with a COI are often encouraged to add their name to this list as opposed to starting an article themselves. There should be enough material there to keep you busy for a while! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JP. I did a litle searching. Listings at Requested edits are by COI editors, Connected contributors lists 'contributors to Wikipedia who are covered by, or significantly related to, an article on Wikipedia,' and Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles seems closest to what I'm looking for. Just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation as well. If anyone come across a COI editor that they would like help with, I would be happy to help out. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg - request for community unban.

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

---

I believe this user should be unbanned and that the arbitration committee were wrong to ban in the first place, given the very circumstantial nature of the evidence. While ScottBerg may possibly be a sockpuppet, it cannot be conclusively demonstrated and therefore he should be allowed to continue contributing to Wikipedia, if he so wishes to. I am presenting this appeal anonymously to avoid this suggestion from affecting my reputation as a Wikipedian. I will not further participate in the discussion. --23.20.151.72 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support ScottyBerg is a productive editor with 2 year's experience and 12,000 edits, and a clean record (minus the sockpuppet investigation which was conducted in secret using secret evidence). Even if he is this other editor, whatever conduct issues they might have had in the past have obviously been corrected otherwise he wouldn't have been able to accumulate 12,000 edits over two years without any issue. Productive editors who aren't causing any problems should not be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Filing IP is from an Amazon hosting range and may be a sockpuppet of somebody. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • How do we know this IP which is making this appeal anonymously isn't ScottyBerg himself presenting a reason to be unblocked via a new sockpuppet? Not accusing, just saying.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this - This is clearly a person with a real account editing via IP solely to evade detection. Perhaps it is a current editor, perhaps a banned one, perhaps it is scottyberg himself pulling a fast one. That's why IP editors should be kept out of AN, ANI and related discussions. I have no hat in the ring of scottyberg's identity, but clearly this request has no merit. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - with No unblock. per Tarc.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – If we are talking about this person and not necessarily the account, then we need to change the subject's to User:Mantanmoreland. --MuZemike 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

...and what if ScottyBerg really isn't Mantanmoreland? In such a case, it would be impossible for him to ever get unblocked because he wouldn't have the password to the account. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why the hell are we even talking about unblocking, then, aside to inflate some people's misguided sense of social justice out there? Of course, there is likely also Wiki-political reasons to unban/unblock. --MuZemike 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, if ScottyBerg truly isn't Mantanmoreland, then he either needs to convince ArbCom or the community. This discussion serves no purpose. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose According to the WP:List of banned users, the puppeteer had a history of abusing socks to bring off-wiki controversies to Wikipedia, and after ArbCom limited him/her to one account he/she violated that restriction. The proposal by an anon IP is suspicious. If the IP was really an editor in good standing than using their actual account would have made me much more likely to vote Support. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy close with no unban. The community is under no obligation to honor requests posted by unidentified socks (and yes, logging out to avoid scrutiny on one's main account is considered socking), especially when for all we know it's the banned user himself socking to post the request. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• If User:Alison's considered analysis of the evidence is that ScottyBerg is a sock of Mantanmoreland, I have absolutely no reason to doubt her judgment. I especially have no reason to doubt her judgment if all the other checkusers and arbs who have also seen the evidence agree with the finding. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am unarchiving this, as I am not a troll, and now have created an account under my real name to file this request. Seriously guys. --JohnPGordon (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@JohnPGordon: You said you were a Wikipedian. They were asking you to use your regular account, not a brand new one using your real name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked as the next "sock" of Mantmoreland. Period. --JohnPGordon (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Many editors spoke out in defense of Scottyberg and none were blocked as sockpuppets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

JohnPGordon, you may want to review our sock puppetry policy, where it is clearly stated that undisclosed alternate accounts, such as the one you are using, may not be used to edit project space. 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think he is well aware of what he is doing. --MuZemike 18:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, User:Claritas? Awaits "If it weren't for you meddling kids" statement. --MuZemike 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural close per Tarc. No prejudice against the user requesting unban but it would be a terrible precedent if we let a sock do the asking. --John (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Adding a NOINDEX tag to unpatrolled articles

Hey guys

After suggestions on the New Page Triage discussion page, we've opened a Request for Comment on adding the NOINDEX tag to unpatrolled articles - basically ensuring they can't be syndicated by google. If you've got an opinion or any comments, head on over there and post your two cents :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Unified login

I want unified my login w:cs:User:Want for all Medawiki projects. This username 'Want' in english wikipedia is inactive over six years. Maybe i founded him, but it is very long time and his mail address not exists. Can anything be done? Thanks. 147.32.86.51 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the SUL tool that account is unattached from the Single User login. However, it doesn't have any edits, so I would suggest filing a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Attribution question

Hi. I have an question about attribution that's been bugging me for a while and thought this might be the right place to ask. Firstly, can admins move categories to other namespaces? I was under the assumption they couldn't, but if the answer's yes, feel free to ignore the the rest. So here's what happened. Cej10 (talk · contribs) created what was essentially an article at Category:Children's books about death. This was clearly inappropriate for a category, so Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) moved the text to Children's books about death and I tagged the talk page of the article with {{copied}} to provide attribution. So far, so good. But then the category was taken to CfD (see CfD) and the consensus there was to delete the category (even though the talk page of the article reads "Category:Children's books about death now serves to provide attribution for that content in Children's books about death and must not be deleted so long as Children's books about death exists"). I asked the deleting admin (Mike Selinker (talk · contribs)) if the history could be restored somewhere and he restored the content (but not the history, as I don't think he was able to) to Talk:Children's books about death/original. The problem is that it looks like Mike created that content, not Cej10. So, is there anything that can be done to get the history of the deleted category out so we can show proper attribution through the {{copied}} template? Or do we just have to say 'bad luck' for this one? P.S. – I haven't notified any of the editors I've mentioned as this isn't really about any of their actions, but I will if someone thinks I should. Jenks24 (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Category pages cannot be moved. Since Cej10 is the only author of the original text, Good Olfactory's edit summary ("moving this text from Category:Children's books about death; sole author is User:Cej10. If you want to notify the creator, contact User:Cej10, not me") is sufficient to provide attribution. The {{copied}} was not necessary in this case, and Talk:Children's books about death/original should probably be simply deleted as unnecessary. T. Canens (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. On re-reading Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia I see that it does say a linked edit summary is the minimum and I guess in this case that will have to do. I agree Talk:Children's books about death/original should be deleted. Thanks for your help, Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is actually the List of authors method. Since the list is short (only one author), it fits in an edit summary. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefanomione

On 5 March 2012 Stefanomione (talk · contribs) was "banned from using any gadgets or other automated tools (hotcat in particular) to modify categories" and was notified about this, but since than he has used HotCat at least five times since than ([58], [59], [60], [61] & [62]), and I think he uses HotCat continuously, but hides this by avoiding auto saving. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I for one didn't realize it was voluntary. I misunderstood the last noticeboard decision and thought that we were taking that capacity away, somehow. I've continued to follow his work was surprised to see how prolific he's remained in category creation; this helps to explain it, I guess. There were some problematic categories created since -- well, whatever in retrospect that discussion was, now -- in that he continued to create Terminology by author subcats despite a clear indication that they were judged problematic, and were actively being deleted. They are nominated here. What that should mean, coupled with the fact that he's ignored or -- I guess, like me -- failed to completely understand that "ruling," well, I leave to the community to decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that HotCat is a Gadget, and thus nobody knows if a user has enabled it, until they use it. This could be avoided, if a Gadget could be disabled for specific users. Is this even possible? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. At least the hotcat usages look to me like a clear violation of the conditions. I don't know if the suspicion about Twinkle is correct—Stefanomione could comment on that. I think that the previous discussion's conclusion offered a fairly generous "second chance" to the user. I'd like to hear from Stefanomione before saying anything definitive about my opinion, but it doesn't look good at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The part with Twinkle was an error on my part now corrected. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Armbrust's Wikipedia:HC#Avoid_auto_saving suspicion seems to me to be a rather serious accusation. I wasn't even aware of this functionality until now. Trying to cover one's tracks in this way would require an awareness that he was violating the terms of the previous AN. Personally, I'm inclined to think he wasn't acting duplicitously, so I don't think he was covering tracks -- nor can we ever prove it, as I understand. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yesterday 20 March 2012, between 19.54 and 19.57, I was so concentrated in creating/sorting two new categories (Category:Works about Marie Antoinette and Category:Films about Marie Antoinette) that the automatism (31.000 edits) in my hands took over: I made 3 edits inadvertently using HotCat. I wasn't aware of that until this message on Noticeboard. Indeed, I don't know how how to disable this tool (is this possible anyway ?). There is some convincing evidence I didn't use this tool for my last 900 edits: (1) making category-edits in the classical way, I take the opportunity to put categories in a new order (sorting) AND (2) I wrote 900 edit summaries (two things you can't do with HotCat) AND (3) (as the time registrations clearly show) since the HotCat-ban, I need 25-30 seconds for 1 category-edit (before 5-8 seconds). There should be no doubt I have the clear intention to respect the HotCat-ban until it is lifted. Stefanomione (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want to disable HotCat, than go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, remove the thicker before "HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion" and than click on "Save". Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Done ! Of course, I should have known/done this before. Stefanomione (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Ozar Hatorah Toulouse shooting

Hi,

I don't know if this is an administrator task or not, but it looks like there is consensus to merge two articles:

• 2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings and 2012_Ozar_Hatorah_Toulouse_shooting

see discussion here Talk:2012_Ozar_Hatorah_Toulouse_shooting

The merge is holding up consensus to post to ITN as well. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2012_Toulouse_shooting_.2F_2012_Midi-Pyr.C3.A9n.C3.A9es_shootings

Cold someone please take a look? Sorry if I'm wasting anyones time. Thanks,

Legitimate IP user. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

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

The case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mlpearc (powwow) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

The case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Clear logging of restrictions and arbitration enforcement actions

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

---

User:Prioryman was recently blocked due to what appears to be an inadvertent violation of WP:ARBCC sanctions. When those sanctions were enacted, they were applied to the account that Prioryman was using at that time. Prioryman invoked his right to vanish with that account, but he returned and is on his third account since then, by my count. The logging of the recent block seems rather convoluted "Prioryman (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for violation of sanctions (while not named above, he is also subject to these sanctions per ArbCom). He was unblocked after admitting error (made inadvertently) and promising not to do it again". There was a discussion about some of these issues on the ArbCom talk page last summer, but as the recent logging shows, the situation has not improved.

Sanctions are an agreement between an editor and the community not to engage in actions that have proven in the past to be problematic. Prioryman's many sanctions (both ArbCom and other) are not listed under his current account name, making it impossible for the community to determine if Prioryman is abiding by those sanctions. I request that all sanctions which apply to Prioryman be properly logged (either by adding new entries of simply updating the username) and that sanctions which are logged correctly identify the sanction which applies to the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The sanctions in question are both ArbCom and community imposed. Since the enforcement of any sanction is necessarily done by admins, why would AN not be the appropriate place for this discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only pages you linked to were ArbCom pages; presumably if you want ArbCom to explicitly add Prioryman to the list of accounts topic-banned from climate change, they're capable of saying yes or no to that request. Also, didn't you just request an interaction ban with Prioryman? Why are you still opening noticeboard threads about him if you want to not interact with him? 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was quite clear that I wanted all of Prioryman's sanctions to be properly recorded, not just the ArbCom ones. If there are other users who have sanctions listed under previous usernames, I would like those to be updated also, but this is the only such case that I am aware of at the moment. I asked for Prioryman to be banned from mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes, which I would still like to see, but this has nothing to do with his behaviour or actions, simply the correct recording of sanctions and proper logging of violations. Perhaps you wouldn't mind re-opening the thread now that you understand what I was asking? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've told you elsewhere, it's none of your business, and furthermore it's yet more pathetic petty harassment - you were lucky to avoid a ban last time I highlighted your misconduct. Didn't you request an interaction ban with me? Whatever happened to your apparent wish to disengage? Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions, especially community-imposed sanctions, are the entire community's business. The sanctions exist - why would you object to having them properly recorded? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[63] Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through, it really doesn't seem a major issue given the context. The block was logged by a sitting arbitrator and so it appears Arbcom does not want to openly link these accounts (even though it is public knowledge). As far as I was aware the only listed sanctions against Prioryman are via Arbcom (the Scientology one, which is listed for both his previous and current account, and Climat Change, which admittedly isn't - and indeed isn't listed on Editing Restrictions). If you would like to list the active community sanctions against Prioryman's previous accounts I am sure someone will go through and update the notes. To update Arbcom sanctions you do need to talk to Arbcom. Given your prior interactions with this user (I thought you were both voluntarily under interaction bans??) this was probably not a good way to have gone about the issue, though. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC has refused an offer of a mutual voluntary interaction ban and he has already been told that this issue has nothing to do with him. The fact is that he is a troll and serial harasser who narrowly avoided being banned from Wikipedia in January for harassing and outing another editor off-wiki (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal). He is currently maintaining a thread on me on Wikipedia Review and his latest foray above is just another chapter in his campaign of harassment and vigilantism on and off-wiki. The closing administrator in the earlier discussion on DC's conduct castigated what he called DC's "WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior". DC demonstrates this on a virtually daily basis with his attacks on other editors on Wikipedia Review, and unfortunately this is just another example of the same thing, evidently in revenge for the earlier ban proposal (which I raised). In short, please do not feed the troll. Prioryman (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I am currently under two interaction bans, which are listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. The community can see them and, if they wish to, check that I have not violated those sanctions. Since you have had a number of different accounts since your sanctions were imposed, I am asking that they be updated to point to your current username. If there are other cases were this applies, I would ask that those listings be updated as well, but yours is the only case of which I am aware. This is really just a procedural request, although there may be issues related to yoru prior exercise of WP:Right to vanish, so it is worth having a discussion. You are the one adopting a battleground mentality here by making accusations and name-calling. I would happily accept a mutual interaction ban, provided it was binding and that it excluded dispute resolution processes, as I have said before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets not not get off down this track (slinging accusations) or I will close down this thread - but if you both want a voluntary interaction ban I will happily "impose" one on you. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be very happy for you to do so, frankly. DC refused an earlier offer of a voluntary interaction ban when I proposed that he should respect it off-wiki as well, i.e. not continue his ongoing harassment thread on Wikipedia Review. It should also be a total interaction ban from all forums on Wikipedia, including dispute resolution, which he has abused as one of his main vehicles for harassing other editors. His refusal says much about his lack of willingness to disengage. Without an interaction ban these collisions between us will keep occurring - not because of anything I'm doing, but because of his ongoing battlefield mentality and his malicious agenda. So if you want to avoid that, please, by all means, impose an interaction ban, though DC should really be banned from Wikipedia as a whole given his history of vile behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement, but since it seems that both Prioryman and myself now desire for an interaction ban to be imposed, so ErrantX, if you would like to impose one, please do. Given Prioryman's record, I would prefer that it be imposed and binding, rather than voluntary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What DC is looking for here is a partial disengagement on terms favourable to him, to allow him to continue attacking me on and off-wiki while hindering my ability to call out his misconduct. It's a typically cynical approach. If there is to be disengagement, let it be total. An end to interaction must include dispute resolution processes because that is one of the primary means through which DC has carried out his vindictive harassment of multiple editors, using Wikipedia Review to whip up antagonism against specific individuals. We saw this in the case that I raised on AN/I in January that brought him to the brink of a site ban. DC seems to think that he is empowered to act as a vigilante. He makes very few edits in article space (check out his contributions) and appears to spend most of his time on Wikipedia on various noticeboards or on Wikipedia Review attacking other editors. It would actually be a very positive step to ban DC from noticeboards (specifically AN, AN/I, RFC and arbitration-related. If he has any interest in improving the encyclopedia he has yet to show it, frankly. I also repeat my earlier call for DC to commit to disengaging off-wiki as well, by ceasing his repeated attacks on me on Wikipedia Review. He has refused this call before, which demonstrates how insincere he is about wishing to disengage. If he is sincere he should agree. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ErrantX, I note that the accounts have already been linked in one listing of editing restrictions. I believe there are other community-imposed or voluntary sanctions that are not listed, aside from several ArbCom sanctions. Perhaps Prioryman can list the sanctions that he is aware of to save some searching? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note also that this thread was prompted by an admin questioning why Prioryman had recently been blocked for violating sanctions. That admin checked the ARBCC pages and Prioryman's talk page history, but was unable to understand the block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As the bringer of the action it would seem logical for you to simply list the sanctions you wish to be updated - I assumed you were aware of them, directly, given that you brought up this matter. I'm willing, personally, to humour what you are doing here to the extent that if you can quickly lay out what needs to be recorded, with the minimum or drama, then it can be all sorted out without fuss. If this is just going to turn into another lengthy slanging match between the two of you then I suspect community patience will become exhausted. (as to the latter issue; that really is something you have to take up with Arbcom - perhaps get a clerk to record the sanction on Editing Restrictions, or whatever). --Errant ^(chat!) 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC has conspicuously not brought it up with Arbcom. He is rather obviously trying to do an end-run around them. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a partial list at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#ChrisO_desysopped, but I recall a more recent and longer list (possibly in the ArbCom case regarding Cirt). I am unable to find it using the search facility here and it is quite likely that some has added a NOINDEX to the page so that it won't show up in Google searches. Prioryman is already participating in the discussion and must be aware of the sanctions he is currently under - it seems a bit silly not to just ask him to list them so that they can be properly recorded. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolls don't have the right to make demands. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interact ban between Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman

Well, this is getting tedious. Since both parties clearly don't bring out the best in each other, I'd like to propose an interaction ban. Specifically, I'd like to propose an extended ban that covers off-wiki taunting (or "discussion", if you prefer) as well as a ban on using noticeboards to further these disputes:

• Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman are banned from interacting with each other in any way, including:

1. editing each other's user and user talk space for any reason;
2. replying to each other in discussions;
3. referring to or commenting on each other anywhere on Wikipedia or off, either directly or indirectly; or
4. undoing each other's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• In addition, the exceptions listed in WP:IBAN would not apply:

1. no reverting each other, period.
2. no more noticeboard threads.

These terms are a little stricter than the standard terms for an interaction ban, but as has been pointed out, an interaction ban that allows one party to continue to annoy another with off-wiki postings and repeated noticeboard threads isn't much of an interaction ban at all, and it's clear one is needed between these two editors.

• Support as proposer. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question How in the world are we supposed to restrict anything done off-wiki? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The usual way: an editor can present a link to an uninvolved admin, and if it's clear a party is not following the terms of the interaction ban, that admin can follow the usual warn/block/escalated block process. 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Your use of the words "the usual way" implies that this is a normal part of interaction bans. I am not aware of any other interaction ban which includes such a provision. This would be an open opportunity for anyone who bears a grudge against me to make statements off-wiki which are critical of Prioryman and sign my name to them. It has happened to me before. A Google search for my username will bring up comments -- that I did not make -- about a since-banned person with whom I was in a dispute. This suggestion is simply ridiculous and would set a very bad precedent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• comment - the off wiki clause in this suggestion appears to only relate to DC because there is no suggestion Prioryman has been commenting off wikipedia about anything, and translates as, if Delicious comments, directly or indirectly, about Prioryman at all on wikipedia review he will be blocked onwiki, is that corect? - Also , is it correct that this suggestion would not allow , Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution? Youreallycan 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution would be limited to asking uninvolved admins for assistance, or contacting ArbCom if that's found to be unsatisfactory. The idea, though, is if they aren't interacting, there shouldn't be disputes to resolve. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Although 28bytes attempted to close the original thread on specious grounds and stated that they would likely not participate when they agreed to let me reopen it, a few hours later they are proposing an extraordinary interaction ban. This is a completely unnecessary action, since both Proryman and I have agreed that ErrantX should impose an interaction ban. Any kind of sanction that includes off-wiki activities is unenforceable. I have no intention of laying myself open to false accusations from Prioryman who lied in his attempt to have me banned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tell you what, since you've both agreed to let ErrantX implement an interaction ban, I will withdraw my proposal and let him decide what the terms of the ban should be. My recommendation to him would be not to allow loopholes that allow offsite poking or the use of noticeboards here to further disputes, but I will defer to his judgment and let him make the call. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That sounds fine to me. Thanks for all your help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I would be entirely happy with 28bytes' proposals. DC's concerns about supposed "forged" posts in his name is entirely bogus. He is user 5544 ("Carbuncle") [64] on Wikipedia Review and unless he's in the habit of sharing his login details with other people, anything that user posts is directly attributable to him. The need for an interaction ban that extends off-wiki is shown by the fact that in the space of less than two weeks this month, he has posted about me five times on WR - that's almost every couple of days, an almost obsessive level of attention. Youreallycan is right that I've not commented off-wiki about anything, so there really is nothing comparable on my side. 28bytes is also right that there shouldn't be disputes to resolve, and in fact there aren't - DC is creating issues, and needless drama, by intervening in matters that don't involve him. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Again, the sanctions which you are under are the concern of everyone in the community, even me. As of right now, the community is hampered in evaluating whether or not you have kept to those sanctions, because they are listed under User:ChrisO, not your current username. Some may not be listed at all. They are not secret, yet you have refused to list them simply because I was the person who requested it. The drama here is not being caused by my simple request, but by knee-jerk reactions from you and 28bytes. Your bluster has managed to divert the conservation away from the subject at hand -- recording your snactions and logging your violations -- to the tired topic of how discussing your edits off-wiki is somehow harassment. I have no intention of accepting any kind of restriction which imposes limits on what I can say on other websites. I have suggested that dispute resolution processes are exempted from any interaction ban so that either of us may use them if necessary. That is where you should be making your allegations, not on admin's talk pages in attempts to have me sanctioned for what should be drama-less procedural requests such as this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And I guess that the ChrisO commenting on Christopher Monkton here is not you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
          • It is exactly this kind of needless taunting, and digging up of ancient off-wiki links, that needs to be stopped. It contributes nothing and only raises the temperature. It's blatant WP:BAITING and yet another example of your persistent battleground mentality. You are the aggressor here and a very persistent and tiresome one at that. Prioryman (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
            • And that is exactly the kind of diversionary tactic I would expect when you are again caught in a lie. To set the record straight about who the "agressor" is in this dispute, I do not believe I had any interaction with you until you involved yourself in the ArbCom case regarding User:Cirt. You quite blatantly lied about your previous involvement with Scientology-related articles and proceede to attack me there. I do not know what inspired your antipathy toward me, but you were hostile from that first introduction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Enough. One more comment from either of you on the other, including in this thread, and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Proposal Beam both editors down to Cheron, leave orbit Warp 8. Or in wikispeak- indef both and be done with it. Nobody Ent 20:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Captain, I don't know how much more emergency power we can take before we start to break up. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone just pass the interaction ban and get on with it? Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have sent Errant an email requesting actioning of the interaction ban - if you guys just return to your corners and enjoy yourselves elsewhere till then - that seems to be the best idea - thanks - Youreallycan 20:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Resolution

Ok; sorry that I have been AFK for a bit :) It looks like this degraded, as I feared it would - I came back online to find a number of people asking me to come in and comment further, or close, this. Here is what I suggest, given that you both simply cannot get along.

• A full on-wiki interaction ban between the two of you stopping any interaction, of any sort. excluding dispute resolution processes.
• We can't really enforce an off-wiki interaction ban, however if Prioryman wishes to raise issues of off-wiki harassment (no comment either way on whether that has happened or not) I recommend, if he wishes, an RFC/U where he can demonstrate an issue and request sanction. Such an RFC/U would be exempt from the interaction ban, but with a very low tolerance threshhold for the slanging match going on above.
• I will contact Arbcom in the next couple of days in relation to DC's opening request in this section, regarding the recording of sanctions against Prioryman (but only once this has died down) and see if I can resolve that matter.

Hopefully that addresses *everyones* complaint... if you're happy with that please just briefly say so below (no more slanging matches) and we'll do that. (the alternative is I slap a broad interaction ban on you both now, as the community seems to be getting tired of pointless bickering of the sort above). --Errant ^(chat!) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban that excludes dispute resolution processes is not acceptable. DC's favourite venue is "dispute resolution" noticeboards, generally defined. Read what he said above: "I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement." That's a clear statement of intent that he wants to continue hounding me. There needs to be a total disengagement. I do not have an ongoing dispute against DC. DC, on the other hand, keeps raising disputes against me on and off-wiki, as this thread has shown. This needs to end once and for all. No more loopholes. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it a loophole? Don't do anything that would require dispute resolution with DC. That way, if it is attempted, it would be obvious to everyone that it is without merit. Arkon (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC doesn't contribute to article space in any significant way. We have no overlap in terms of editing articles. However, he seems to have taken it on himself to "police" my edits and has repeatedly and spontaneously intervened in matters that simply don't involve him, as in this case. He has harangued both me and the Arbcom about my edits (and got slapped down for his troubles, I might add). He's shown every sign of intending to continue to do so. Virtually all of our interactions to date have been in the context of "dispute resolution". Put simply, if you want this dispute to end, you need to stop him interacting with me in any venue on Wikipedia. ErrantX has suggested a broad interaction ban. I'm all for that. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked that out and reworded it (and the section). However I suspect now DC won't like it. It makes it very hard to find a middle ground and get you both to disengage. If that doesn't work, then 28bytes suggestion above, via community consensus, is likely our last avenue. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Frankly I couldn't care less whether DC likes it. The bottom line is that there needs to be a permanent end to this dispute, and that simply can't happen if there isn't a total disengagement on both sides. I don't want to perpetuate this but DC has given clear notice that he wants to perpetuate it. That's why only a total disengagement will work. And I'm quite happy with 28bytes' suggestion, by the way. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, by the way, did you start this dispute between the two of you? Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. has asked that DC and I not comment on each other, so I'm not going to take that particular WP:BAIT, thank you very much. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My aim here is to put an end to the constant on-wiki attacks, allegations, lies, and vitriol from Prioryman. That was why I asked for a topic ban weeks ago and why I am willing to accept a reasonable compromise now. To be clear, when I say "dispute resolution processes", I am not referring to either WP:AN or WP:ANI (both would be included in any such ban). If it helps, I can agree to limit myself to arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and RFC/U participation. As noted by Cla68, an RFC/U is not something that I can launch without a co-endorser, so I assume that no one would object to my participation in an RFC/U involving Prioryman should one ever be initiated. Similarly, if Prioryman had genuine concerns about my off-wiki activities, an RFC/U would probably be the place to have that addressed, and I would have no objection to one being filed by him. It seems perverse to bar someone from highly moderated administrative processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, all those fields are included in the ban. And I strongly recommend you should begin acting as if it was already in force, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I'm not seeing consensus yet for the restrictions as requested, so I don't think DC, or Prioryman, is bound by them yet. I for one, am opposing the proposal until it allows DC to be a co-signer on any future user conduct RfCs. DC and Prioryman, I recommend not accepting the proposed interaction restriction as currently written. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I disagree with including dispute resolution processes in the interaction ban. As you know, user conduct RfCs require two or more endorsers. DC should retain the option of being an endorser on any future user conduct RfCs posted on Prioryman, as DC does have a legitimate grievance with Prioryman [65]. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That kind of squabble is exactly what this interaction ban is meant to end, so it would be rather silly to leave a loophole for further continuing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • RfCs are very helpful at resolving disputes, as they invite broad community input. So, I think it would be more helpful to allow RfC than to to ban it. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not - allowing RfC or arbitration enforcement is just another way of saying that you want the dispute to continue. If it is to end, there must be a total disengagement and there must be no room for fresh arguments to be started (and do please note that I didn't start this thread). Prioryman (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• There's a curious asymmetry here: the original issue is that Prioryman had a comment deleted and was blocked for inadvertently breaching WP:ARBCC#Scope of topic bans by participating in a discussion about the topic ban on another editor: as discussed elsewhere other topic banned editors had apparently participated in that discussion, but were not blocked. One of them, Cla68, is participating above, arguing to extend the venues for this dispute. On precedent, Cla's contributions here should be deleted, and a token block imposed on his record. Whether that is done or not, a complete disengagement with the same wide-ranging scope as the ARBCC is appropriate and has my support. . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So we are at an impasse then? One wants total disengagement, the other wants certain avenues to remain open. Realistically I don't see how this will work out for both of you and, to be honest, I don't see how this can be solved except without some sort of community discussion (unfortunately). I have wasted a little while digging into this sorry mess, so some thoughts:

• DC, given your past history with this user it was, at the very least, extremely bad judgement to have opened this request - and insisted it remain open. (FWIW the right avenue might have been to privately ask an uninvolved user to raise the issue). Given that you recently expressed a desire to have no interaction with prioryman you are definitely at fault here for persisting the matter.
• I am struggling to see exactly why dispute resolution would be needed as an exemption; is the suggestion that no one else is capable of keeping an eye on prioryman and raising issues with his editing? Or is the intention to contribute to future DR raised by other editors? In either case, I don't really see the urgent need.
• Publicly commenting on users off-wiki with whom you have a dispute on-wiki strikes me as the height of bad manners, and simply fuels the fire.

The fact you, DC, now have multiple interaction bans against you indicates a continuing problem. Flicking through your recent & older contributions I notice you spend a lot of time pursuing perceived problem editors, and other forms of "policing". This is not in itself a major issue, someone has to, but it looks like your approach leaves a lot to be desired. I recommend reflecting strongly on how you interact with others, and consider spending more time contributing article content - it can be a relieving process :)

• Prioryman; DC has raised an important point here, that you may have active sanctions against you that are not receiving scrutiny. I'd strongly encourage you to take steps to correct the recording of all those sanctions - if for nothing else then to avoid the perception of impropriety.
• Your hands are far from clean in this dispute, and there are a number of recent incidents you could simply have not been involved in by virtue of not taking part... so I counsel burying yourself in content work and ignoring anything else for a bit.

Both of you need a good shake, and to be set down somewhere far away from each other. And you need to stop commenting on, pursuing or raising issues with each other (both on and off wiki). There are plenty of other people capable of doing that for both of you. Absolutely nothing seems to be gained by allowing the two of you any leeway in interaction, but much (mostly peace and quiet) seems to be served by splitting you up. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much engaged in content work (see [66]) and I have absolutely no wish to interact further with this individual. I didn't want to on this occasion and nobody asked him to start this thread. I'm not involved in any content disputes with him or any other editor, we have no overlap in terms of article editing and I'm certainly not engaged in providing a running commentary on him on or off-wiki. My record of contributions speaks for itself and has attracted a great deal of praise from other editors (see my user page), with whom I'm working in perfect harmony. The last thing I want is to be repeatedly dragged into disputes by people who have taken it on themselves to "police" my edits. That's why I want a total disengagement, and I agree completely that nothing can be gained by allowing any leeway, such as a "dispute resolution" loophole. As for the past sanctions, I will be having a discussion with the Arbcom about that. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, Future Perfect at Sunrise owes Delicious Carbuncle 10 cents. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Whatever else we do here, could we please ensure that Prioryman's sanctions he accrued under his earlier accounts are clearly logged? He already misrepresented his past once, invoking RTV, and then returning and claiming last year to have no prior involvement and no knowledge of a topic area in which he was and is under sanctions. It seems to me we are talking about everything here but Prioryman's prior sanctions. So what are the prior sanctions? What, if any, community sanctions are there, in addition to the three arbitration cases? We really do need to establish that. JN466 02:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

RPP backlog

Resolved

It seems that the admins at WP:RPP have skipped quite a few.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

POTD urgent

Hi. I have just in the past few seconds created Template:POTD/2012-03-22. I hope there isn't a rule against using Flickr images, or images that have been previously featured on Wikimedia Commons. I created this only because the Main Page was destructed by the absence of today's picture. Please point me to a more suitable discussion if necessary. In any case, feel free to shrink the blurb as needed, and create a protected version of the page. Why was this backlogged initially? I chose this from Page 26, and the previous one was 25, yet the real reason was because this was a weather image. The other one I could have chosen was this, but identifying the city north of Bangkok was becoming too tedious and stressful. Please comment on the suitability of this image, and I will notify the editors involved that this image has been tentatively scheduled for 1 hour 42 minutes ago. Please talk to me about the suitability, procedure and explanation for backlog. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edwin Ubiles

Hi, this article was deleted in 2010. The reason was that he was not a notable basketball player at the time. I believe that he is now that he plays professionally in the NBA.[67] It would be great if someone can restore it, so I can develop it. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 02:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same guy? The AfD nom wrote he was a "College american football player". If they are the same player, though, I agree with undeletion. Jenks24 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the same guy - he must have said "football" when he meant "basketball". Undelete. Doc talk 03:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 04:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo on TFA

I've just swapped the image in the blurb for Today's Featured Article because of copyright concerns about the previous one. Does the file, File:Goose Green - Altrincham, Cheshire - geograph.org.uk - 1608511.jpg, need to be protected here or on commons? Nev1 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You either need to get a Commons admin to protect it on Commons, or upload it locally and protect it here. If Betacommand were around, he'd trout you. I've never uploaded a file in my life, so I can't do the latter; I'll go to Commons and try to find an admin to do the former. I'm temporarily removing the file from the Main Page; as soon as one of these two things happens, it can be re-added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the help Floquenbeam. Nev1 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I restored it and uploaded a local version. What's the template that we use to indicate that a file has been temporarily uploaded for Main Page use? Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Pp-main-page}}? Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite; that appears to be for files that were already on here before they were being prepared for the Main Page. I just found the template I wanted: {{Uploaded from Commons}}. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. It will, of course, need to be protected anyway. Black Kite (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done as soon as I uploaded it. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just learned something new. For your future peace of mind, it seems things have changed somewhat and I never got the memo. Commons now has a page maintained by KrinkleBot that automatically protects files on commons that are used on our main page. So the page was cascade-protected on commons at 0:07 today. That means it was unprotected for 7 minutes (which is still not good), but not more than an hour, as I had thought up until now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Meta:Global_bans

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3588548&oldid=3405149

I'm hear to spread awareness of meta:Global_bans. Anyone wishing to critique or comment on the draft global policy may do so at meta:Talk:Global_bans. Help with translating the draft into other languages and with spreading word to other projects would also be appreciated. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What can be done to prevent the constant addition of the same fake information

Just like in the Muhammad article, people keep deleting images of Muhammad.

In the The Farewell Sermon users keep adding back a fake but famous version of the farewell sermon, which was discussed in the talk page and confirmed as fake in a deletion nomination. Every time data is added back, its removed by users who know its fake: like here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

What can be done about this, I think a notification should be added to that page, like the Wikileaks page that says "WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.", as this keeps happening again and again, message should say something like "Please note that before editing this page, their is a fake version of this sermon that cannot be verified and should not be included".

Basically problem is with a fake sermon attributed to Muhammad which has no "primary source" and appeared on the internet.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can do two things, depending on how exactly you "know" that it's fake:

• Add an WP:Edit notice to the page to educate editors.
• Expand the article to tell readers that there is a fake version floating around the Internet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It says only admins and account creators can add edit notices--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You can write the text for an editnotice and then ask an admin to create the editnotice with the text you've written. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, admins, Can you please kindly make an edit notice on the page The Farewell Sermon with the Message: "STOP: are you here to add an english version of the Farewell Sermon of Muhammad? Please see the talk page as a famous fake version of the sermon attributed to Muhammad is floating around the internet with no primary source", please make it with a red background like edit notice on Muhammad article. Thanks in advance.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cut from vandalism page - possibly not vandalism

Resolved

 – This was probably a case for WP:AN/3RR or WP:ANI, but I have given Durresary11 a 31hr break in order to read WP:3RR, and full-protected the BLP in question (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• Durresaryl1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - seemingly content dispute when I originally reported the user some days back. Evident however that user is not responding to discussion and continues to disrupt an already protected page Rita Ora with edits such as these[68], [69], [70], [71] and [72]. I do not believe this user has not opened his yellow "messages" box. Further evidence that the user knows exactly how to deliver comments is from having done so here, and notice that the message also involves blanking a large section. Hard to tell if user is vandalising on purpose but is disruptive without question, clearly not a person the rest of the community can easily work with - see ignored warnings in talk. To enlighten, the page is protected precisely to prevent people rewriting history and playing with the birthplace information; the editing of "origin" alone is in conflict with the source provided by User:Olsi, but the source remains in place. I am neutral on that issue and more concerned about removal of "Yugoslavia" if Pristina is the correct entry. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:RFPP backlog

It looks like there is some unhandled requests at RFPP. Some requests have been there since yesterday. -- Luke (Talk) 13:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We've cleared it. Secretlondon (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:24.143.224.15 recieved too many vandalism warnings

he got WAY too many warnings. if he vandalizes/disruptive edits again, give him a block without notice. Jawadreventon (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You should read the notice at the top of the page that you linked. That IP address does not represent a single individual all the way back to June 2010. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Ticket Request System

This is just a note that the Unblock Ticket Request System is back online and in need of administrator attention. The problem was outside of our control.--v/r - TP 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Theres a sizeable backlog of 30+ cases up to 2 weeks old sitting at WP:SPI. It would be greatly appreciated if some action were to be taken on these. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Now over 40 cases.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Brit Con Mn,

Where is the listing for Brit Con Mn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.171.17 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Brit Con MN? We don't seem to have an article on it. In the future, if you wish to ask a simple factual question like this one, please go to the reference desk, since this page is mostly for resolving interpersonal problems and fixing certain technical issues. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

CFD Backlog

• WP:CFD

CfD has a bit of a backlog going back over 20 days, if someone would please like to help out. Thanks : ) - jc37 20:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Request Edit Backlog

There is a backlog at Category:Requested edits that is getting larger. It's still manageable at the moment though. Could some administrators please go through the backlog? Normal editors would be a big help too for looking over neutrality and all of that in the requested edits. Silverseren^C 05:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I know maintenance work like this (and the other backlogs on here) isn't very much fun, but we need to work through all of it to keep the project running smoothly. Can some people please look through these? Silverseren^C 01:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I cleared out the semi list. I'd do the fully protected list too, but I don't have the mop. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I also cleared out some of the COI-related requested edits. We're down to 12 of those, some of which have been sitting for many days. I'm heading to bed, but I'll check back when I get another chance. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help. Silverseren^C 08:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Rita Ora article/protection level

Admin User:Bwilkins has raised the protection level of this page and it is set to expire on 11 April 2012. I contend that this was an inappropriate move because there was no content dispute but merely vandal fighting against a sneaky disruptive editor: Durresary|1 see here. I did try to explain to the pronominal admin that the time he froze the page and blocked the disruptive user for edit-warring, the article was left in the erroneous condition that the disruptive user left it in. Bwilkins advocates discussion which from a bird's eye view seems amicable. A closer inspection of Durresary's edits however reveal that the editor is beyond civilised discussion (see examples first paragraph), and the matter that he has contrived to promote with every edit since the account's inception involve violating ALL Kosovo related issues (which many admins know demand caution) by insensitively elevating the region's status to sovereign without a thought for the controversy it provokes nor the general practice that ALL established editors from each side adhere to. In addition, the page was protected upon a request by me precisely to exclude accounts such as his. Fortunately for the individual, the account was created some time PRIOR to the restriction and therefore it automatically qualifies as "established user" which it isn't. It is evidently a duff account: blocked 31 hours, no appeal but no need anyhow because the only page he has edited since 20 March has been Rita Ora in which time he has never responded to a single message on his talk page but there would be no need in the first place since the article sits exactly as he wishes it to. If we keep it like that, whoever is editing from his account will stay away from the article, if you change it, he will return to edit-war ad infinitum. It is possible the person is unaware the account is blocked, and has never even opened his message box. The editor only knows how to click the "edit" button and has even used it to leave his comments. An examination of the individual's comments also show that they are unfit for the talk page let alone be stuck to the article. I have never in six and a half years of editing taken issue with an admin; it is clear however that the freezing of the page even to established users with the instruction to discuss was a shortsighted measure. The edit war concerned the origin and involed User:Olsi, it just happened that each time Durresary logged onto the page, he removed 'Yugoslavia' as country of origin and that is PRECISELY why the page was protected: see the following[73], [74], [75] (from a similar account), [76], [77], [78] and [79]. Loads more scattered about. Now spot the difference. Can any admin seriously suggest trying to reach "consensus" with that lot? If consensus on widely accepted historical accuracy is even to be reversed, it would require a separate project page, and a radical shake-up of the entire website over hundreds of thousands of articles. It is a non-starter. The only way to solve the problems on the Rita Ora article is to lower the level to keep new users out and to block Durresary|1's account indefinitely. Its creation before the first restriction was a fluke and I doubt someone is keeping a "reserve account" for disruption. Either way, it would be easy to figure it out. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually Durresaryl1 made a comment on the talk page, unfortunately deleting everything else in the same thread in process (I AGF this was a mistake due to an inexperienced user or perhaps some sort of editing issue) and so you reverted it. The comment suggests they don't really understand the concept of WP:OR but it seems worthwhile trying to engage them which will start with restoring their comment which I've done. Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, I am happy to communicate with anyone! But is there a "genuine" person operating that account or is it really an absolute novice? The fact that he's produced one talk page comment shows he does know more than clicking on "edit". But has the user even opened his own discussion page? For all we know, the "you have messages" box may still be on display. But like I was saying, the restoration of the sovereign country of origin is not the topic that was the subject of the edit war, it was the town of origin. User:Olsi who speaks Albanian and can read the source he provided has even admitted that his citation refers only to the subject's grandparents. He definitely will not play with the article after admitting uncertainty here[80]. But then I can vouch that he is a constructive editor. I for one promise to leave it as it is, except at the moment, the article contains the source supporting Olsi's version. There is a separate source for the Pristina origin (pushed largely by Durresary) and I wish to put that in its place. Upon doing so, I also intend to apply the neutral and historically accurate country of birth. I speak of this revision, 100% accurate - ackowledging then and now republics - and most of all, using the correct source for the given origin location. It's a three-way enterprise. Unfortunately though, encouraging this account-controller to accept Yugoslavia for origin when he barely discusses anyhow will not be easy looking at this. No admin would countenance the removal of a date of birth from a subject, it would be an outrage and this is the next best thing. If an editor went around removing people's dates of birth and another reverted each time, who could dismiss this as "content dispute" and encourage the good faith reverting editor to engage in dialogue with the IP/single-issue editor who merely disrupts? Who can honestly suggest a consensus be reached? Again I say, if this were Olsi or a host of other editors, I would discuss this. But Durresary? A false account for certain, never appealed the block and now free to edit and has edited NOTHING since returning, and won't either. It is definitely a duff account. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about your date of birth comment. In fact removing poorly source date of birth info is allowed perhaps even encouraged per policy (WP:DOB). Looking at the article, the date of birth there doesn't seem to be directly sourced so I will likely be removing it myself after protection expires unless someone finds a reliable secondary source which mentions the date of birth. Note that as per our policy in some cases (which perhaps don't apply here) even if the info is sourced it may be removed, so it always pays to consider the reason for removal rather then blindly revert.

Anyway back to the main issue. I'm confused by your assumptions. If Durresaryl1 is indeed an inexperience new user then they may very well not know how to use their talk page, this isn't exactly unheard of. In this particularly case, if we make the assumption (WP:AGF) Durresaryl1 is a new user with little idea how to communicate. They tried using the article talk page, made a mistake and their message was promptly removed. If they ever visited their own talk page, perhaps by the time they visited it it was a lot of warnings and a block. It would be hardly surprising that they would have little idea how to proceed. (I don't really get what you're trying to say by the lack of a block appeal, if anything new users confused by our policies are more likely to not appeal a block then a sockpuppet or whatever you're suggesting Durresaryl1 is.)

In fact, your example here [81] seems to reenforce the view that this may very well be a new user with no idea how to communicate and so started trying to use the article. Remember we don't block or ban people for having strong existing POVs, simply for unacceptable POV pushing. This user doesn't have to change their minds to be able to edit wikipedia, they just have to understand what is and isn't appropriate for articles and unfortunately it's understandable IMO if they are a new user who is still confused given what's happened so far. Ultimately we can only do so much handholding so if they really never learn they may have to be blocked per WP:Competence but I don't thing we've reached there yet.

P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not blaming anyone for the way this had been handled until now, simply saying because of the way it's been handled it wouldn't be surprising if this was indeed a new user who may very well communicate if they understood how and start to moderate their behaviour.

P.P.S. This isn't really a topic for discussion here but one of the (probably copyvio) Youtube links the OP provided way back in 18th March has someone who I presume is Rita Ora saying she was born in Pristina or Kosovo several different times. While we don't always rely on what people have said about themselves, in case of simple facts which aren't unduly selfserving from my experience per WP:BLP we usually do. In most (but not all) cases this will apply to a place of birth. Unless there is evidence any source which claims she was born somewhere else has actually properly researched the info or is disputing what the subject herself has said, we generally shouldn't add it. We definitely shouldn't say there is any contradiction unless we have good evidence that there is actually a contradiction rather then simply confused or wrong sources. Even more so if it's talking about her parents or grandparents. If we don't have sufficiently good sources the best thing to do is in fact simply remove the info until better sources emerge. In this particular case if she was born in one place and says that all the time, she moved somewhere else when she was 1, it seems questionable to me to be adding 'origin' to a third place just because her grandparents were from there. Even if we had some sources for her parents origins, she may not consider these her origins if for example her parents moved to her place of birth many years before her birth.

Anyway as said the details itself should be discussed in the article talk page. The reason I mentioned this here is to say if the dispute was solely over her origins and the OP was adding Pristina and others were changing it back to Shkodër then I would have to say it seems to me the OP's action in the article were more 'correct' then others regardless of the poor communication. (Although as said, the OP actually tried to provide the interview way back in 18th March.) However the better alternative is probably to simply remove the info. More importantly, again I see no reason to assume that this isn't a confused new user who can't be made to understand our policies and work collaboratively.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Topic is being discussed, all parties have been notifed. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

High replication lag

Hello. This is just to notify all those admins checking other user's edit count; that there is a high replag of more than 6 days. This is causing much problems to many users; including me. So please be alerted of this issue. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 09:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how this is handled, but if it's a case of being one volunteer and that we should not ask much because it is just one volunteer, maybe that is not enough. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Should Wikimedia Foundation be alerted about this issue? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of who handles what, but I'd say yes. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is under discussion at WP:VPT#Toolserver replication lag. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

withdrawal of AfD

I created an AfD for Tessa Violet a little too hastily and after doing a little background research found my reason for nominating for deletion to be invalid. I would like to withdraw my AfD. If there is a procedure already in place for withdrawing an AfD please let me know on my talk page. --⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 13:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Undo your edits here, here and here and tag the AfD discussion page with {{db-g7}}. However, no need to do the last step this time - I'll go delete it now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Would it be appropriate for a WP:SNOW close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). I've been involved in the discussion and am therefore "involved", but I'd like an independent admin to have a look at the discussion and maybe put this to bed, or give reasons why the discussion should continue to run. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A little extra exposure here for a few will help but after that unless things change, I wouldn't see why it couldn't be closed early. I wouldn't object if somebody closed it now, but I won't personally do it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd object; there's an important principle here. Malleus Fatuorum 07:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'important principle' being your monstrous ego, I presume? Given that your only contributions to the AfD have been soapboxing and bluster (no actual comments on the notability or otherwise of the subject), I see no evidence of anything remotely 'important' at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Struck as inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"reply to fatuous malodourum...". Nice. That you are unable to see is your problem, not mine. You might like to try and get someone to keep an eye on your mouth though. Malleus Fatuorum 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

People who stand on soapboxes should expect to get heckled. Now explain what this 'important principle' is. You haven't so far... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've said on MF's talk page - I see notability as a black/white issue. Others see it in varying shades of grey. I accept that consensus is against me in this particular case and therefore bow to such consensus. Iff the AfD discussion is closed as delete, the title can be salted, which should then be an end to the matter. If any editor has issues with another editor's conduct, there are appropriate venues to raise such issues. So far, no issue has been raised by those complaining at the AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about shades of grey, it's about buckling to the demands of the subject of a BLP. If Hawkins didn't want to be notable then he shouldn't have become a BBC radio presenter. If PoTW has been a problem for him, then deal with PoTW. Malleus Fatuorum 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy: knock that crap off right now. Malleus is entitled to vote as he likes in an AfD without being called names. 28bytes (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes he is. Except that it isn't a vote (and this isn't the AfD). AfDs are supposed to be about the suitability of the article as Wikipedia content, not about 'important principles' that we have to take into consideration without knowing what they are. MF seems to be suggesting that the mere fact that the subject of a BLP objects to an article is a good enough reason to keep it. Or if he isn't, then what is he arguing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? That's not been my experience so far. Malleus Fatuorum 07:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, no, and again no. BLP is not an excuse for circumventing all Wikipedia process, or the exception that swallows the rule that we are building an encyclopedia. By the general principles of Wikipedia the article should be there and its subject has no say on that - a media personality does not get to promote himself to be famous on the one hand, and on the other censor his own coverage here for whatever his idiosyncratic purposes. However, the majority of the community so far supports the proposition that this article should not be there given the circumstances, and by that standard - WP:CONSENSUS - we will more likely than not delete it. We'll see, most people have not yet weighed in. It is a potential consensus deletion, not a BLP violation, and crying BLP every time a human being is involved in the discussion isn't any way to run a community project. The article has existed for years over the unexplained murky protests of its subject. He can wait another few days. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The AfD must run its course and I've expressed my opinion on the article there. But if it should stay, I will open a discussion here to impose a topic ban from the article for Pigsonthewing who has, in my opinion, been a major (and unnecessary) cause of the dispute, as ecidenced on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the topic ban go straight under WP:BLPSE? I'm rather surprised that no one invoked it earlier. T. Canens (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've warned Pigsonthewing - as I read WP:BLSE a user must be warned and disregard the final warning before a ban can be applied. As far as I can see he has not yet had a warning that WP:BLSE could be invoked. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He only needs to be warned about BLP - and he has plenty of warning judging from the talk page discussion which repeatedly referenced the policy. There's no need for a specific warning that he can be sanctioned under BLPSE. T. Canens (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't tried to re-add the material since 2nd March, as far as I can see; a ban three weeks later would be stretching a point, IMO. If other admins agree he's fair game for a topic ban, go ahead. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering this? I'm seriously tempted to just topic ban him now. T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

With no advance warning that his persistence had been judged by others to have crossed the boundary, it would be unusual to impose a topic ban retrospectively; it might be an idea to ask Pigsonthewing to seriously consider taking this option as a gesture of good faith. Now there has been a warning, and it has been explained, further transgressions would be worth discussing here for possible action though I consider such problems out of character. Pigsonthewing is a very long term valued contributor and should be able to take the hint or explain his point of view while sticking carefully to BLP and behaving in a collegiate fashion. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Some eyes on the AFD would be handy; there are a growing number of comments attacking the subject (which of course is inappropriate, and hardly helping the situation) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What PoTW is doing is more or less the definition of tendentious editing. Even if WP:TE is only an essay, it's used almost like policy at times and editors have been sanctioned for in the past. Blackmane (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised not to have been notified that I'm being discussed here; contrary to clear policy. I haven't added Hawkins DoB - which he himself publicises regularly, from his high profile, public Twitter account - to the article since circa March 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You were notified 5 minutes before posting this, Pigs. You added reference to his exact date of birth to the article talk page as late as March 2nd this year. WP:DOB does not specify that it refers to article space only; the whole of WP is available for anyone to view. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

PotW's most recent reaction is completely intransigent (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=483349066&oldid=483347638]). He refuses to leave the topic alone. Given the consensus here that his activities in this topic area have been disruptive and have been a major factor in souring the relationship between the project and one of its BLP subjects, I have blocked him until he agrees to stay away from the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• In view of the last many 'keep' views on the afd, a snow 'keep' might be in order. I don't believe the initial 'deletes' were a random sample (unlike the 'keeps', coming in from random views of this page and elsewhere). The current block of Andy Mabbett is one of the most ridiculous I have ever seen. Oculi (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• On the AfD I have suggested adding a note on the talk page highlighting that his exact date of birth shouldn't be included in the article. As this might also be useful to other pages, I've created a mock-up of a possible Template:DoB year only at User:Thryduulf/DoB year only. As my template coding skills are basic and rusty, please feel free to improve it if you think it has merit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For interest, this is a recent contribution by Jimbo on his talk page, in response to an editor posting about the AfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm not sure an immediate block was warranted - though Andy showed no remorse and an intention to pursue the issue. I suggest we simply topic ban Andy now, and unblock him so he can continue on other work. Per WP:AEBLOCK we need a community discussion to achieve this.

DOB

In general WP:DOB gives the article subject an avenue to request we don't publish their full D.O.B. We almost always honour this in situations where the subject is not very notable - such as this.

Pursuing the issue

Andy claims he has not added the D.O.B to the article since 2010. Which is true; but in 2011 and 2012 he made a point of raising the issue around the guys birthday - a long term case of WP:STICK.

Subject dislikes Wikipedia

It is clear the subject doesn't like Wikipedia, and disapproves of this article. Which is fine, his opinion. One of the criticisms being raised is that he is using our policies to try and control the article - that could well be true. But I think we still should honour the DOB request - refusing to do so on the grounds he is using it as a form of control probably undermines our position.

I'm concerned that the pursuit of listing the DOB is in part a reaction to the perceived effort to control the article (Andy has said almost as much). I don't see any benefit in continuing that pursuit - it will simply upset the subject further, and lead to Andy getting into more trouble. In my experience of OTRS correspondents that are upset with Wikipedia, demanding control or deletion of the article, it is usually fixed by simply not pursuing the little matters (such as D.O.B). Chances are we will never here of this again.

So I propose Andy be unblocked and topic banned under WP:BLPSE from Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd obviously agree with this solution. As far as I'm concerned, anybody is of course free to unblock him as soon as some alternative assurance of him staying away from the topic is reached, be it voluntary or involuntary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:AEBLOCK doesn't come into it. That was 2007 and to do with infoboxes - nothing to do with radio presenters or BLP. WP:STICK - it's more like WP:FEATHER, barely perceptible annually. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd support an unblock with a topic ban from the Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) article and from discussing the subject of that article in all namespaces. I don't see any evidence that something softer is likely to work. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support an immediate unblock with a stern warning to the blocker to heed WP:INVOLVED. Edits like this one are definitely a situation of "in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The removal of some blatantly BLP-violating material does not make FPaS involved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously this was in full accordance with WP:INVOLVED, "interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock and topic ban, agree with Nyttend that this was not a good case for Fut.Perf. to have intervened in. The sooner we confirm the topic ban (shall we say 12 months, to get us past the subject's next birthday?) the sooner the block can be lifted. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and make it indefinite. Have there ever been similar problems in other BLPs, or is this specific to Mr Hawkins? Because if other BLPs are affected, I would argue for a topic ban covering all biographies.
• By the way, one comment above which seems just ... odd is this one: "One of the criticisms being raised is that he is using our policies to try and control the article - that could well be true." What the ...? This seems to be saying that editors want the right to break policy, and the right to paint biography subjects as evil-doers if they insist editors follow it, as in this case with WP:BLPPRIVACY, which states quite clearly that BLP subjects have the right not to have their date of birth in the article. Truly bizarre. JN466 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • re "Have there ever been similar problems in other BLPs". None recently as far as I can see from his contributions and talk page, and he does seem to do some good work (primarily copyediting) on BLPs so I think a topic ban that broad would be excessive as it currently stands. Obviously we should make it explicitly clear that if the problem shifts to other articles then the topic ban will be broadened and/or replaced with harder sanctions. The only area of concern I'd have predicted from his recent talk page threads would be related not to BLPs but to templates, particularly when discussing merging them, however my opinion here may be coloured by my interaction with him on a current TfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strange block - for "not agreeing with cop". As far as I can tell, the block was over refusing to agree to a self-imposed topic ban or that a 3-week-old talk page comment was inappropriate. BLPSE doesn't apply here, and an admin reaching for that hammer to try to win an argument against a nonadmin is wrong. There's a reasonable case to be made for some kind of quasi-interaction ban between the article subject and the editor, both of whom seem to be badmouthing and accusing each other on the article talk page. If that's what it takes to prevent disruption and keep the project running smoothly, so be it. On the other hand, the article subject has been less than helpful here as well. He will presumably go away if his article is deleted, but in the off chance it is not, we'll likely have to deal with his ongoing issues as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• What about Beeblebrox? The article's entire talk page is presently a BLP violation. The subject opted out of having their date of birth in the article years ago, and yet the talk page is filled with three weeks' worth of speculation over his birth date, based on stalking his tweets. Beeblebrox is calling the subject "deliberately obstructive" on the talk page for exercising his right under policy to have his date of birth excluded, and says his objections are "not relevant". Again, all Hawkins has done is exercise his rights under WP:BLPPRIVACY. I'll drop Beeblebrox a line and ask him to give an account of himself here. JN466 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what it is you want from me here. I don't believe I have done or said anything that can't be explained by simply reading all of my remarks on that page so I have no further comment or "accounting" to make at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind striking "deliberately obstructive" and "not relevant" on the Hawkins talk page? --JN466 17:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support and better make sure that PotW understands that the topic ban extends to the talk page and other possibly related articles.VolunteerMarek 21:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. As always, indefinite does not have to mean forever. For now it is best if Andy doesn't edit this article or its talk page. --John (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. All this attention to a minor BLP page is absurd—raising the issue periodically, even if only on the talk page, is either a WP:POINT violation, or some kind of harassment of the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I trust that Andy will not mention the unspeakable again and his other contributions to the article are benefitial. Agathoclea (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ban Indef - Not just topic. This editor has a massive block log and has already been to Arbcom not once but twice, the latter resulting in a 1-year timeout. & years and counting, the message has apparently not sunk in. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Examining Pigsonthewing's block log shows the recent (controversial) block by Future Perfect at Sunrise that lasted less that 6 hours, a block in 2009 that was a mistake and blocks before that all in September 2008 and one in 2007. Calling this a massive block log is over-egging it and when the only unrelated blocks date from over 3 years ago as evidence for a topic ban now seems weak. --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Excuse-making is your forté, after all. I stand by my assessment that this is a problematic user who simply does not "get it(tm)". Tarc (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Nobody Ent 15:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose based on Pigsonthewing's commitment below under Response. A lot of well meaning folks seem to have got tired and emotional over this one, I suspect that once the AFD closes many will be left wondering why it caused so much drama and handbag throwing. --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

A topic ban - like the earlier indefinite block, now rescinded - would be wholly unneccessary overkill. I have not edited the article since an uncontested and non-controversial URL fix last October; I have not added the DOB to the article since another editor removed it two years ago. I posted evidence of the subject's self-publicity of their birthday and age (merely reporting what the subject had said elsewhere) three weeks ago, in order to enable discussion of whether or not it should be in the article. Like similar evidence the year previously, this was discussed and its inclusion disputed, but no editors considered the evidence worthy of removal until it was (routinely, and not for a year, in the case of the March 2011 edits) archived. There were no claims that I breached BLP by doing so, and though the matter was discussed on ANI (after I raised another of the subject's calls to vandalise Wikipedia), no admonishments resulted from that. I have already indicated that I refrain from making contentious edits to the article, discussing them first, and as it is the community's wish, I am prepared to undertake not to mention the actual DoB at all. My other, undisputed, edits to the article have helped to improve the encyclopedia. There have been accusations of harassment made against me, with no supporting evidence, save that I added the above evidence, and no mention has been made of the subject's on- and off-wiki harassment of me (some of which made from IP addresses presumed to be him), to which I have refrained from responding. As for the observation that I have "shown no remorse", which Wikipedia policy requires that ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy, if you bite the bullet and extend your response to make an unambiguous commitment to voluntarily stop all contributions to the Jim Hawkins article or talk pages and avoid posting or linking elsewhere on Wikipedia to specific details about Jim Hawkins which might be interpreted by others as failing to meet DOB (for, say, a period of 12 months) then I would oppose a formal topic ban. This would leave you free to discuss the matter in principle elsewhere and if there are unsupported allegations of harassment being made about you on the discussion pages related to the article (such as the current AfD) then I suggest you commit to working with friendly admins who can take action, present a complaint on your behalf, or alternatively you can raise any serious demonstrably false allegation for review on AN/I. I suspect if you take this step then the above proposal for formal action would be seen by many, and hopefully most, as unnecessary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already indicated that I am prepared to undertake not to mention the actual DoB at all; if you wish me to word that as "posting or linking elsewhere on Wikipedia to specific details about Jim Hawkins which might be interpreted by others as failing to meet DOB", then so be it. I have already responded to your wider suggestion when you made it on my talk page. Voluntarily [sic] agreeing to self-impose a topic ban under threat of an imposed topic ban is, clearly, not voluntary at all. I have already outlined above why a topic ban - however imposed - would not be appropriate. There are unsupported allegations of harassment being made about me now and no admins have been willing or able to prevent this (your kind intervention not withstanding). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that, once the subject has made their wishes clear on the matter of the date of birth, any further discussion of this anywhere on Wikipedia is a violation of BLP policy as written, at least as long as there is no new OTRS communication from the subject rescinding his earlier one. As the matter is put quite clearly in BLP policy, I can only assume that your not understanding was wilful, and your insistence on the matter against all reason is in my view ample reason for a topic ban covering a small 250-word biography. There are over 3 million other articles to work on. --JN466 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

At the time of, and immediately subsequently to, my edits that was not the view of those discussing the matter on the article talk page, at WP:ANI (2012), nor at BLP/N (2010), on either side; leastways - as I explain immediately above your comment - nobody expressed that view. Indeed, an uninvolved admins said the tweets I cited in 2010 were acceptable proof of the DoB (albeit adding that better sourcing would be preferred). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the above comments as further indications that a formal topic ban is necessary as the editor has made no clear commitment and has decorated "voluntarily" with "[sic]", and has explained that they do not voluntarily make any commitments. There should not be unclear limits to any painfully extracted commitments concerning the topic. Any commitments should be made in view of the BLP policy and community consensus, not to escape a formal topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I have "made no clear commitment" is bogus. I have clearly said "I am prepared to undertake not to mention the actual DoB at all; if you wish me to word that as "posting or linking elsewhere on Wikipedia to specific details about Jim Hawkins which might be interpreted by others as failing to meet DOB", then so be it". I have not said that I "do not voluntarily make any commitments". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(Johnuniq) Pigsonthewing's reply to my statement above was a clear enough commitment for me to put forward an Oppose shortly after it was given. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, and actually it was the reason I posted. However, I am happy to just disagree. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actions taken on the article

• Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As an administrator who was previously unaware of this article, I have taken the initiative to add an article talk page OTRS notice referencing the email complaint in 2009 which supports the application of WP:DOB, I have deleted the article talk page history due to multiple mentions of Hawkins' birth date and associated links and deleted sections in the talk page archives that discussed and speculated as to birth dates. To my mind, these actions are supported by WP:BLP and so do not require advance consensus to implement.

I propose that the article history is deleted (so that only administrators could review it) unless someone has a better suggestion on how to remove the complex history of inclusions of birth date in the article, though this is a fairly unusual act, verging on censorship, that I would like a consensus here before taking such an action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Blanking the talkpage was appropriate, but I think deleting the history would be an overreaction. It's his date of birth, not photos of him in his undies. It's not a BLP violation and he can't possibly sue. FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether someone can sue, it's a question of doing the right thing (ethics). Wikipedia is a major resource on the Internet and should not be used to irritate minor BLP subjects with no clear encyclopedic benefit (of course significant politicians and the like will have properly sourced and due material in their articles, even if unwelcome). Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but we would normally only delete an articles history for extremely good and obvious reasons. Hawkins' date of birth isn't sensitive and it's available elsewhere. I think we ought to adopt a less panicky attitude in the face of complaints. FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take on this, in my administrative capacity. Blanking everything related to his birth date is all right (though I agree with FormerIP that we seriously need to change our attitude towards these requests; sometimes we just have to tell people tough shit), but deleting the number of revisions that contain his birth date on the article and talkpage seems like overkill. Wikipedia cannot be responsible for stuffing the genie of freely revealed information back into the lamp by request, because as is mentioned above his birth date is rather easily found elsewhere on the web. There's nothing there that isn't readily accessible without a quick Google search, so there's no major privacy concerns. Just leave it be, because eventually (hopefully decades from now, but still) the subject will die, there will no longer be a BLP concern, and we'll end up putting his birth date into the article anyways. Just because it's a BLP issue doesn't mean we need to scream about it at the top of our lungs and run around like chickens with our heads cut off. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that editors here have no hesitation to tell the subject of an article we write about them "tough shit" if they don't like it, is one of the main reasons the subject has so much hostility towards Wikipedia and its editors. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

People will have all sorts of reasons to not like us no matter what we do. Instead of trying to be too many things at once, we should stick with our core mission of being an encyclopedia; that inherently means we're going to tread on people's toes. And I have had to tell a family member IRL that I can't remove accurate, sourced information about the owner of the company she works for, so this isn't an Internet tough guy act; sometimes good feelings and good encyclopedia writing are incompatible, and when that happens we should default to the encyclopedia side, because we're an encyclopedia and not a feel-good blog. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making a keep-vs-delete argument here (I did that in the AfD). I'm making an appeal to treat our article subjects with more respect. 28bytes (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Reality check sunshine, most of these minor BLPs are not encyclopaedic they are the dreggs from gossip columns. John lilburne (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm quite with reality; don't patronize me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm in need of a recalibration. If this site wasn't mostly dedicated to gossip the bigger story would be in there somewhere. John lilburne (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why, when it comes to content, I typically stick to this article and a few related ones. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been much better if an uninvolved administrator had done this. By uninvolved, I mean one who hadn't (1) voted "keep", and (2) repeatedly posted to the AfD arguing their position and SPA-tagging a "delete" voter. As it stands it looks uncomfortably like an attempt to derail the AfD. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I think that blanking the talkpage was appropriate, I have to say that blanking the talkpage, deleting its history and then making this comment in the deletion discussion was an abuse of tools. FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The archive pages have not been revdel'd or re-created so all the information is still, at this point, visible in the history of those sub-pages. My preference would be to keep that history available for those pages. The end result being that transient dubious posts that (for any reason, including claimed harassment) have been removed from the main talk page will not visible but whatever ended up getting archived will remain. --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Although there may have been extreme circumstances in this particular case, I don't interpret WP:BLP to mean that editors cannot discuss a BLP subject's date of birth on an article talk page. There are extensive discussions of the birth date of actor Juliet Landau on the article's talk page - should that page be blanked and the history deleted? I support a topic ban (and I see no great need to keep the article if the subject objects to it), but deleting the talk page history seems like an over-reaction that is not grounded in policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Once the BLP subject has made it clear that they do not want their birth date in WP (which is the case here), this should be honoured, incl. on the talk page. Fæ's deletion was thus fully justified. (I don't agree with Fæ that this means the article should now be kept, as we have to judge it on the past seven years, rather than one Friday, but the deletion was a good-faith action in response to a concern I raised on Jimbo's talk.) JN466 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also have preferred deletion decisions to be taken by an uninvolved admin. I archived the talk page yesterday to make the DOB discussions less visible, but I didn't delete the history, mostly because I had commented in the AfD, and in part because deletion prevents editors from seeing how the subject has been treated (e.g. editors repeatedly deleting the subject's comments, which means not all input was archived, so the history of the page is not, in fact, available in the archives). Some of the subject's comments were personal attacks, so it was fair enough to remove them, but others just showed how frustrated he was. Fae, you referenced OTRS. Did the subject request deletion of the page history? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is a consensus for me to withdraw I would be perfectly happy to do so, and for any other admin to reverse my actions and do things differently. In fact, based on the feedback here so far, I have no intention of taking further admin actions myself on this article; please remember the first time I was aware of this article was yesterday, though I accept I was unwise to touch the AfD. My intention was not to make the actions themselves about me, but in good faith fully to ensure the policy of DOB was enforced (even after such a long period since the original complaints).

As for VRTS ticket # 2009090910048758 it includes 6 verifiable emails from Jim Hawkins in September 2009. He initially asked for the article to be deleted but later was prepared to accept a compromise if the article was protected once it was in a demonstrably accurate state. He specifically objected to his birth date being included as an "invasion of privacy". Though emails to OTRS are confidential, it is no secret this email complaint exists and as an OTRS volunteer I have passed on the bare bones needed to support the actions requested. If there are requests by the community for more detail, I (or another OTRS volunteer) would be happy to consider them, but any response may require permission from Jim Hawkins to reveal much more from the original correspondence. A key point in the emails was privacy invasion, to protect his interest of privacy, I interpret that to include the same material appearing for the public to read or reference on the talk pages, their history and the history of the article, though I am unsure if Jim Hawkins technically appreciates exactly how these work or how to use them to see the material he considers private. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Fae. The problem is that there are two issues currently being decided: (1) whether to delete the article, and one of the issues informing that decision is how poorly the subject has been treated. The evidence of that treatment resides in the talk-page history you deleted. And (2) whether to topic-ban Pigsonthewing, and again the evidence of whether he behaved inappropriately lies, in part, in the deleted talk-page history. As you voted to keep the article and (I believe) not topic-ban Pigsonthewing, you can see the conflict, though I accept you were acting in good faith.

In addition, the DOB material is still in the archives for anyone who knows where to look, so really, the only people protected by deletion of the talk-page history are the Wikipedians who were clashing with the subject. For that reason, I think you ought to undelete the history, wait for the AfD and topic-ban discussions to close, then ask the admin who closes the AfD to consider deletion of the talk-page history at that point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems entirely logical to me, I'll undo my changes to the main article talk page as per your suggestion. As the page history has been around for years, I can't see a strong rationale for excessive risk to the subject for the short time the AFD is running. I will leave an additional note on the talk page to this effect. --Fæ (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. It will only be for a few days, and it means the various issues won't get mixed up. Thanks again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking ahead

Accepting that the AfD debate will run for at least seven days, I've been thinking about what should happen when the debate closes. My thoughts are that one of two things should happen.

1. If closed as delete; salt the article.
2. If closed as no consensus / keep; fully protect the article. Reasons being the objection of the subject to the very existence of the article and the relative ease there is to overcome any protection offered by semi-protection. Additionally, an edit note should be placed on the article's talk page forbidding any discussion of his d.o.b. until such time that the article no longer covers a BLP.

Thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• The talk page note you suggest is already in place. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite, there's an OTRS note requesting that discussion is restricted to year on birth only. I had something much stronger in mind. Try editing the RMS Titanic article and see what happens - like that, but much stronger wording. Anyone who dares to raise the issue having been expressly told not to should face the prospect of an immediate block. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The wording is probably overly nice, though DOB carries its own weight. I agree with a firmer notice when the AFD finishes (if a keep conclusion) so that everyone realizes that BLP will be fully enforced. With regard to indefinite full protection, this is unusual, I suggest that a notice advise full protection to be used as needed, in response to any privacy related issue in preference to semi-protection, due to the past sensitivity of the article, no more than a week at a time. Compare to Barack Obama which is only semi-protected despite astonishingly high traffic and sensitivity. --Fæ (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Indefinite full protection is unusual, but I think would be justified here. JH claims that there are inaccuracies in the article, but refuses to identify them. AFAIK, all info is reliably sourced, and WP:V beats the WP:TRUTH every time. An indefinite full protection would prevent any vandalism at all. It may even force JH to tell us what is wrong with the article and where his assertions of any inaccuracies can be verified. Being a high profile BLP, Barack Obama probably has many sets of eyes on it, which is not the case here. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

V does not beat truth every time, especially not when it comes to BLPs, and the policy doesn't say that. It says "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth," which simply means that material has to be sourced before we add it. It does not mean that inappropriate material must be added just because there is a source for it. A reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion.

Mj, with respect, I think you ought to step back from involvement in this. You suggested at one point that we use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the subject's DOB. [82] I suspect that was the kind of comment that made him feel uncomfortable about us hosting an article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think full protection would be proportionate to the problem. The current discussions are likely to lead to a situation where inappropriate editing of the article stops and enough editors will have the page on their watchlist to deal with it if it doesn't. This isn't a situation where there is any need to impose martial law. FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

SV, I don't intend to do any major editing to the article, although I am prepared to step in and revert vandalism etc if necessary. To put into context my comment made in 2010, at the time JH was advocating vandalism of the article by means of his Twitter account (as far as I remember). I did complain to the BBC about this but they declined to take any action. Following consensus being formed that we would not include his d.o.b., I've not supported any proposal to add it. At that time, such consensus had not been formed, as this was part of the debate about whether or not his posting his d.o.b. on Twitter was useable as a source. With hindsight, I accept that I shouldn't have made the suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is that both sides saw their actions are reasonable, but each had an entirely different perspective. You wanted to include material that you saw as uncontentious and you were looking for a source. You wanted to reach out to him, so you telephoned him. You wanted him not to advocate vandalizing Wikipedia, so you contacted the BBC.

But from his perspective, this is: anonymous people have created the number one Google hit for his name without his consent. Some of them revert or ignore his interventions on the talk page, and tell him the contents are not up to him. They suggest hunting down his official papers to nail down certain details. They telephone him, and they contact his employer. The people nominally in charge of the publication won't help him. This makes him very nervous, so he feels he has to constantly check the entry to make sure it hasn't deteriorated. Over the years, this has upset him a great deal.

Because this has been such a fundamental miscommunication, I think everyone involved in that article, directly or otherwise, ought to step back (i.e. not edit the article or the talk page, and not take any admin action), so the subject sees that entirely unconnected people are looking at it now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, nicely put. --Fæ (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've put forward my suggestions. Looks like there will be more eyes on this article in future so I'll not take any further part in this. I've not got this article watchlisted via the Wikipedia system, although I will be aware if the article itself is edited via my own system of watching articles I've been involved in editing. My intention is only to revert clear vandalism to the article if it should occur, otherwise I'm not going to edit the article, and will steer clear of the talk page unless directly asked to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

On the button SV. Contacting employers and hunting down official papers is completely beyond the pale. But none of that is relevant to the current AfD; it's relevant to an examination of the activities of Mjroots and others. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

When a BBC employee advocates the vandalism of Wikipedia via his radio show, then I don't see that there is anything wrong with contacting said individual's employer to complain about such advocacy via the use of his radio show. The fact that my complaint did not get the response I was hoping for is neither here nor there. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I simply can't agree, and I'm frankly astonished that you defend such an action. You're one individual, not a representative of the WMF or even of Wikipedia. What you did was clearly harassment, and unless you accept that and promise never to do anything like that again I'd be very strongly in favour of you being indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Anyone who knows anything at all about me knows that I'm very much against blocks and bans, but there have to be limits, and you crossed one of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My complaint was made in my capacity of a private individual. I'm loathe to say this, MF, but your calling for me to be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia seems to me to be another example of your anti-admin attitude. You're against blocks and bans all right, particularly when they are aimed in your direction! As SV says above, I acted in good faith, even if I may have been wrong. Nobody's perfect, especially not me. I've amassed over 100,000 edits on Wikipedia, something that would not have been possible if my intentions were not for the general good of the project. OK, I've made a few mistakes along the way, but who hasn't? BLPs are not my general area of interest in any case. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My attitude isn't "anti-admin", it's anti-twat. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a line, and you've just crossed it . I suggest that you retract that statement before someone uninvolved gives you yet another block. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you consider your position before making even more of a pratt of yourself than you already have. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You pretty much single-handedly created this whole Jim Hawkins mess, but you just can't see it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you should both step away from this. Mjroots, I tend to agree you should not be involved any more in this article. Malleus, rubbing it in when someone makes a mistake isn't helping anyone. This situation will resolve, but this argument is unlikely to help it to do so if it continues. Please, disengage. --John (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I will agree to disengage for now, but if Mjroots' refusal to admit his harassment continues then all bets are off. You have to consider how the subject of an article might feel when approached by a Wikipedia administrator, an apparently important individual who then contacts his employer. I'm frankly astonished that Mjroots is still an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

John, I've already agreed to disengage from the article (above). As for MFs continued attacks, I will say that nobody has raised any issues with my editing of the JH article with me. I never even edited the article until 2009, and examination of the article's history will show that my editing then was with the intention to make sure that the article was sourced and compliant with BLP. There has been fault on both sides here, a fact which some editors seem to conveniently forget. I've admitted my mistakes, and don't intend to repeat them. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "attacking" you, just trying to fill in a few gaps in your misunderstanding of "harassment"; don't ever do anything like that again. If you do, I'll be on your back like a ton of bricks. Malleus Fatuorum

MF, are you seriously suggesting that attempting to deal with encouragement to vandalise Wikipedia constitutes harassment and that it is perfectly OK for a BBC radio presenter to use the vehicle of his show to encourage others to vandalise Wikipedia?

OK, maybe I went about it the wrong way. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and should I come across this scenario in future, then I will contact WMF with the details and let them handle it. We deal with on-Wiki vandalism on Wiki, so it stands to reason that we deal with off-Wiki attempts at vandalism off Wiki. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is actually going to close this AfD with a consensus to delete? Seriously? Time for plan "B", methinks. Or to re-evaluate what "consensus" is, maybe? Doc talk 05:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. I think it mainly depends on the prejudices of the closer who is first to the punch. FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses Mr Hawkin's own requests against him

Can I just say I think it's absolutely disgusting what some 'volunteers' on this site are prepared to do to serve their own warped ideas of right and wrong. It's a basic fact that if anyone from this site has ever advised Mr Hawkins that removing his date of birth from his article will protect him from identity theft, they have flat out lied to him, most likely through a position of total and utter ignorance of the topic of id theft. It appears that the only reason you seem to get away with this sort of total negligence is to hide behind this veil that you're all apparently 'volunteers', so don't have to stand by any sort of professional advice like this you might give out. As if that's not bad enough, when I tried to highlight this to him with a message on his article, one despicable person among your who goes by the user name SlimVirgin had the bright idea of using one of his own requests to Wikipedia to stop speculating about his DoB, to justify removing my warning to him about this dodgy advice. I've challenged them on how much of a morally repugnant lie and abuse of trust that clearly is, and unsurprisingly they've gone deaf and dumb on me. The only reason I can see for SlimVirgin to be doing this is self-protection, because I think if Mr Hawkins ever found out about either the dodgy advice, or the way his requests are being used against him, he'd understandably hate you lot even more. If It were me, I'd be fucking furious. But fine I thought, I'll just go and add a note to the article to let Mr Hawkins know he should probably check out what information he has been denied using his own request. But what do I find? The page has been totally locked using the same justification. Disgusting. And it appears that SlimVirgin is not just an incompetent outlier among you, it was another user who protected that page, and yet another one who goes by the name Tarc who has played his part too, in prolonging the deceit about id theft to other unsuspecting victims. Crummity Nordrid (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be getting cross about something that hasn't happened. As far as I am aware nobody has told Mr Hawkins that removing his date of birth will protect him from identity theft. If you know different, please supply the diffs. The advice at WP:DOB does not say that hiding your dob will protect you from identity theft. It says that including someone's dob in an article might make them more vulnerable which is a different piece of advice entirely. By the way, only a very few people use their own real-world names here at WP. So snarkily referring to someone who "goes by the user name XYZ" as if that were some indication of underhand dealing is a bit odd. Especially coming from someone who was presumably not named Crummity Nordrid from birth. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have double checked the email discussion on OTRS (ticket 2009090910048758) from 2009. No advice by email with regard to whether removing his birth date from the Wikipedia article would protect his privacy was given. There are no other emails on OTRS that match a search for "Jim Hawkins". It should be noted that SlimVirgin argued above to ensure that the talk page history was restored for open scrutiny by anyone while the deletion discussion was continuing, a step that would run counter to any conspiracy theory of a cover-up of some sort. It is probably worth noting that SlimVirgin and I expressed opposite personal views in the deletion discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• - Identity theft in this case is a red herring, an irrelevance compared to the subjects limited independant notability and his complete objection to en wikipedia hosting a biographical article about him and at least two users - one an administrator, that have effectively hounded the subject using the en wikipedia platform over a period of years. - Youreallycan 16:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoa there! I did some editing to the article in 2009 with the express aim of getting sources into the article and ensuring compliance with BLP, and was involved in the 2010 discussion of his d.o.b. (If you don't believe me, check the article's history). That does not constitute hounding the subject. As one of the many people that help pay JH's wages, I object to him using his radio show to advocate the vandalising of Wikipedia. I therefore raised a complaint with his employer. Something that any member of the UK public is entitled to do when they perceive that any BBC employee has acted improperly. Again, this is not hounding, harrassment or anything similar, however JH decides to try to present it. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You have at least said you will never edit the article again and stated that with hindsight you would do things differently, small benefit to the subject but at least a declaration for the future. Youreallycan 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Where did I say that I'd never edit the article again? I think you'll find that I said I did not intend to make any major edits to the article, but was prepared to step in and counteract any vandalism to the article - something any editor is entitled, and should be prepared, to do. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Crummity Nordrid, if you feel Jim Hawkins has been given poor advice, you are more than welcome to go give him better advice. He has a public Facebook page, I'm sure he will read your comment if you post one there. That's probably a more productive approach than insulting the editors here. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Block review, please?

I've just blocked Luck5664 (talk · contribs) for POV pushing and edit-warring in Palestine-related articles, including edit wars on two articles today. I set the duration to indef, because the user seems to have no purpose or interests on Wikipedia other than POV warring, but AE and ARBPIA are not areas which I generally work in, and I'd appreciate some more experienced eyes on this to make sure I made a decent call with the block and the duration. I have no objection to my block being modified if it's felt that I swung the hammer too hard. Thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously good block of a blatant POV-pusher. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• If I'd seen that at AE, I'd have blocked indefinitely myself; good call. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{{db-move}} follow-through

When an administrator acts on a {{db-move}} request and deletes a page that is holding up a page move (eg, reversing a redirect), they should also proceed to actually carry out the page move (the template provides the name of the page that is to be moved). If the page is simply deleted, it leaves a hole and the page in question very often has incoming links. If the original requester forgets to check a day or two later (no notification is sent), then the page remains permanently missing. I've noticed a couple of different cases in the past several weeks where this has happened. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the deletion and the move usually should be done atomically, ie, either both or neither. For instance, if I proposed to {{db-move}} the page United States to United States of America (ie, to reverse the current redirect), the administrator who handled it should not simply delete United States of America and leave it as a redlink; it has many incoming links. There is no notification to the requester when the deletion has been done, so they would have to remember to check for it in their watchlist; if they forget, it remains a redlink indefinitely (and it really shouldn't remain a redlink even temporarily). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I smell something fishy

Here I found what may be planned vandalism. I'm unsure about it though. AndieM (Leave a message!) 16:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's covered.. I've already planned tagging for speedy deletion. :) Seriously, though, not sure what can be done. There's not much of a plan there. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Opecs were presumably an ancient Mesoamerican civilization whose economy was based on petroleum (until they were defeated by the Pemexes). Deor (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Am I missing something? Is there any particular reason we're assuming vandalism, instead of the more likely misspelling of Olmec? In this case, perhaps it's just as well nobody notified the two editors of this thread, as it seems like it would be a fairly rude welcome to Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree.. I wasn't assuming vandalism.. just making light of it inasmuch as (at the time) there was no plan on the page. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that you were making light of it didn't register with me the first time (the little :) should have been a clue, I suppose); I see what you were saying now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Spam filter problems

Hello.

I have attempted to make legitimate edits, and the spam filter has been causing problems. I have made a request here and then when I tried to update my post there, the spam filter was triggered when it was not triggered before. Please ensure that talk page is exempted from the filter!

Please let me know if I am doing anything incorrectly. Thanks in advance. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Pseudoscience cases are supplemented as follows:

The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.

The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Muhammad Lincoln (talk · contribs)

This user is currently engaged in several cut and paste moves and edit warring. The user's MO is consistent with a sockpuppet of Nipponese Dog Calvero (talk · contribs) DHN (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for page-move vandalism on User:DHN. Feel free to sock-check as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Already did and blocked a range. --MuZemike 00:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Sareyn-geo-stub}}

Because of local blacklists, I am unable to create a stub template for Sareyn County, Ardabil Province, Iran. The blacklist is evidently in regard to a youtube artist by the name of Sarey Savy, so is not related to this county of Iran. Content of the template can mimic content of any of the other county templates for Ardabil Province (i.e., {{Parsabad-geo-stub}}), only replacing the county name with Sareyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawynn (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why the blacklist thinks this is a problem; it's not as if Sareyn is blacklisted. Done for you. Nyttend (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aciyokrocky

Hi, this SPI has been open for nearly a day-and-a-half now, can someone take a look please? GiantSnowman 17:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with User:DIREKTOR

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

---

Hi. I want to report following problems in behavior of User:DIREKTOR in Serbia under German occupation:

• 1. He simply deleting referenced info from the article: [83] - he removed info that common name of that territory was "Serbia" and he also removed references that supporting this info.
• 2. He conducting original research by pushing idea that name of that territory was "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", see: [84]. There was only one source presented on article talk page that says what was official name of the territory, and that source name this territory as "Territory of the German Military Commander, Serbia", not as "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", see: [85]. He does not have sources that would support his aims to rename article to "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia".
• 3. I also suspect account User:Peacemaker67 is his sockpuppet, since views of this account are fully resembling views of User:DIREKTOR. I opened official sockpuppetry investigation case about this, but checkuser declined this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DIREKTOR However, I know DIREKTOR for long time, and due to that, I can be 100% sure that User:Peacemaker67 is his sockpuppet (it would be impossible that he is not). Evidences for that are on archieved pages of Talk:Serbia under German occupation, where DIREKTOR tried for months to delete name "Serbia" from title of that article and User:Peacemaker67 behave exactly the same.

So, please, is there a space for some admin intervention or mediation regarding this case - it is simply impossible to cooperate with user who ignoring sources, who deleting sourced info from the article and who creating sockpuppet to gain numerical superiority. Any possibility of any help here? PANONIAN 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

#3 is ridiculous. CU was declined based on the fact that the editing patterns of DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 could not be more different (DIREKTOR would have to be awake pretty much 24/7 to be the sockmaster, which is absolutely preposterous), while PANONIAN's only "evidence" is that the two of them have a similar POV. I'm inclined to write this off as just disruptive forumshopping in the wake of the torpedoed SPI. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Then forgot the sockpuppetry case. What about deletion of sourced info and original research? PANONIAN 18:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaa, what!? Direktor is removing references and names again! After so many failed attempts! I really dont know what to say! And, per #3, meatpuppets are awful also! --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your allegations of meatpuppetry (i.e., recruitment) other than the fact that they share a similar POV? No? Then hop off. As I said in my comment at the SPI, I could haul you, PANONIAN, and FkpCascais into SPI on similar grounds. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No you couldn´t... That is a phalse statement. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said it would work. I am just saying that "similar POV" is a giant load of codswallop when it alone is passed off as so-called "evidence" for an SPI. What you use against your opponents can be used against you with the same (il)legitimacy. That PANONIAN canvassed you and WW is another thing as well, but we shan't go into that.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The level of similarity between Direktor and Peacemakers edits has absolutelly no possible comparison to WW, PANONIAN and myself (you cannot claim similarity of POV in any possible way, you assumed that without any confirmation, only in order to make it an argument against PANONIAN). Regarding canvassing, you seem to be missinformed about what canvasing is... I noteced you mentioning me once in a phalse context, I let it go, but second time was too much. That is why of my intervention here. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions". Oops, looks like you're wrong. Sorry about that. PANONIAN was canvassing; it didn't take much research to find that you take similar POVs in discussions, regardless of the fact that your behaviour is different.

You are right, similarity of POV is a trash argument, but I have made no "phalse [sic]" claims against you. Your name was dropped because I saw that you were canvassed by an editing buddy. It was meant to demonstrate just how insubstantial the claims made at SPI were. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking me to provide him a link of previous SPI report is not canvassing. It was Peacemaker67 who informed PANONIAN about my SPI report on him, only then PANONIAN asked me to provide him the link from that report, as the report happend some time ago.

Regarding phalse statements, it still seems that you don´t understand that your claim that you could make a SPI report on WW, PANONIAN and me is actually wrong. I bet you cannot present one single exemple of somewhere where we agreed on something recently, simply because we did not edited same articles on WP. So it is not trouth that you could... You are just saying that in order to to give a phalse impression about similarity of edits between editors, when in fact Peacemaker67 and Direktor similarities are incomparable bigger and are real. Actually, I don´t understand your intervention at all here, you were not involved in any of these articles, and your intervention in multiple threads has been to find excuses for Peacemaker67 and Direktor in reports made against them. FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You and WW were canvassed to a discussion on an admin's user-talkpage regarding sockpuppetry. Not to the SPI itself, this is true—but to the discussion that was redirected to it.

You don't seem to understand what I was saying at all. I can file an SPI whenever I damn well please; I could do so right now if I really felt like making a WP:POINT. It would get shut down as bluntly as PANONIAN's did, but I could still submit one. Let's be clear: I don't think you, PANONIAN, and WW are the same person, just like I don't think that DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are the same person. And I have hard, technical evidence to support that last point, whereas you all only have weak whining about POVs that you don't like.

You don't understand my intervention? I find that especially entertaining. Maybe you should pull your head out of the dirt and wake up to the fact that if an uninvolved editor finds that your supposedly "clean" side of the story has great, gangrenous gashes gouged into it, maybe you are talking pure hogwash. I cannot stand people who use malicious, unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry to try and gain the upper hand in content disputes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is that he ignoring all these sources that I collected and he claiming that "Serbia did not existed" (see the last claim of this kind: [86] - Quotation: "Serbia did not exist between 1918 and 1944") and therefore he wants to annihilate name "Serbia" from article title. What else is this if not original research? PANONIAN 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRN. This is a content dispute that hardly requires administrator intervention. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Right.. the forumshopping continues, apparently. First the patently ridiculous WP:SPI report [87], now WP:AN for some reason.. No notification, both times, btw. PANONIAN is a buddy of FkpCascais, who got topic-banned for exactly this kind of forumshopping. Now it looks like he's encouraging another user to "continue in his footsteps" [88]. -- Director (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Protection of DYK queues

Just drawing people's attention to Talk:Main Page#Protection of DYK queues. Rcsprinter (whisper) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cold fusion

The recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Issues at Cold Fusion (moved from AN to ANI) seems not to have accomplished much before vanishing into archiveland. The same users continue the same behaviour. Are there admins watching this talk page? (Fair warning: I've been engaged there over the long term.) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA

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

---

As we've been around and around the bush with this editor as various noticeboards, AfD discussions, and other venues of sapping volunteer effort with no signs of improvement I wish to propose either a indefinite topic ban with respect to all MMA related articles and discussions or a indefinite block. As the evidence below enumerates, BigzMMA has consumed a significant amount of volunteer time and resources.

Fair notice: I am involved in some of these discussions/disputes

The Evidence

• October 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA - Attempts to vote multiple times to keep an article, is combative in their campaigning to keep the article
• October 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#User BigzMMA (again) - Discussion about disruptive article creation after a 96 hour block. Discussion includes a pondering about indefinite block
• November 2011 WP:DRN (WP:MMANOT) - User fixates on and repeatedly attacks other users when their attempt to add additional MMA organizations is reverted
• November 2011 Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 November 19#User Papaursa - Looks for advice about reporting a user who is in a content dispute in regards to WP:MMANOT to ANI on grounds of WP:OWN
• October 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#User:BigzMMA - Reporting of several personal attacks which cause BigzMMA to be blocked
• November 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leone - Attempts to vote on an already closed AfD discussion
• November 2011 Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles#User Papaursa and Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#User Papapursa - Attempts to sollicit advice about reporting annother user to ANI.
• November 2011 User talk:BigzMMA#I'm Back!!!! - Accuses people who delete "his" pages to be illegitimate.
• December 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Omer - Lobbies heavily for a non-notable BLP after having several people explain the failure of GNG level coverage.
• December 2011 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#Ultimate Challenge MMA 2 - Complaints regarding the deletion of Ultimate Challenge MMA via AfD which was recreated by another user and BigzMMA has been a significant contributor to since then.
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 - User agressiveley and combatively responding to anybody who expresses a reasoned deletion argument.
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination) - Assumes bad faith about nominator and anybody who votes Delete, posts a TLDR rant about how the policies currently in place are the cause for the decay of Wikipedia through the efforts of Deletion Squads
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 - Proxy attacking people who vote delete by cheering on those editors who poke holes in arguments for deletion and cross soliciting for OMMAC 1 AfD
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMMAC 1 - Proxy attacking people who vote delete by cheering on those editors who poke holes in arguments for deletion and cross soliciting for BAMMA 9 AfD
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 - Rants about how wikipedia's policies are causing the implosion of good content. Cross sollicits for BAMMA 9 AfD
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination) - Cross Sollicits for BAMMA 9 AfD. Makes Ad Hominem attacks on other editors
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Fights 18 - Cross soliccitation for BAMMA 9
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK MMA Awards - Arguing a keep on grounds of "Wikipedia needs to be the archive for everything"
• March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 2 - Repeated Personal attacks against individual editors and deleters as a whole. Asked to remove Personal attacks and responded by making more personal attacks. Warned personally on their talk page to cut the personal attacks out.
• March 2012 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#UFC 140 AfD - Accusing people of violating Wikipedia policies by nominating articles for AfD.
• March 2012 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 - Accuses those who disagree with him of not dealing(?) properly.
• Feburary - March 2012 User:BigzMMA/sandbox - Copying articles that are near deletion or deleted to restore them as they were at a future date in violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE
• November 2011 and March 2012 User talk:BigzMMA#November 2011 and User talk:BigzMMA#March 2012 - Warning regarding canvassing for AfDs. (I didn't notice he had been warned about it back in November earlier this month, but apparently decided to do it multiple times in the last year.)
• January 2012 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#ProElite page been seriously downgraded - Starts a discussion about the ProElite article in a combative manner.

Comments

Topic Ban: Based on the corpus of evidence that shows disruptive and personalizing behavior in the context of MMA events I believe this is the lesser of the two options. Hasteur (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done here, the whole MMA area on WP is a mess, proponents seem to have a very hard time understanding that WP is not here as a sports results service or a place to collect all the gossip about an up and coming event or to document every single fight in the sport, we don't have a page for every NFL game so we should not for every MMA fight or event. It has been mentioned before they should create there own MMA wiki for that. Chief among thoes advocating full coverage to everything MMA has been User:BigzMMA along with User:WölffReik (now indef'ed for copyvio and socking) and neither has understood that WP has policies and guidelines which we all have to work within. I would Support a topic ban (either on MMA as a whole or limited to creating new pages (files, articles or redirections) and deletion discussions) or a site ban on the grounds of no evidence of an intent to work in a cooperative way. Mtking ^(edits) 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban and temporary edit ban I've been involved in at least one of the AfDs where BigzMMA has been involved and have noticed tendentious discussions from the editor. He is extremely active off-wiki and communicates continuously with franchise owners and companies about promoting MMA on Wikipedia. Wifione ^Message 04:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have zero interest myself in these articles, even less than in most sports articles. But perhaps the solution is to make an article on every top level league professional game in all sports. In some sports, there are enough people to do it. Since we don't have size limitations, and they're not ridiculously trivial, the only objection is that it might be possible to get the people to do something more useful, but who am I to say what is useful for anyone else? Better they make the article than we waste time trying to stop them. . DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Would that not be a giant change in the encyclopaedia, think of the regular season in the MLB 2,430 games, NBA 480 games, NFL 256 games, just on those three sports alone in one country would mean 3,166 new articles a year then take say the last 50 years and soon we are talking some 158,300 games in just 3 top sports in one country. Then look at Soccer in Europe and South America on it's own has had organised top level leagues for in some case over 100 years each playing 300+ games per year, very soon someone would be using a bot or something to create stubs on all of these and we could have a situation where a good percentage of WP are just sports results. Would it be better to consider a new Wikimedia project for sports results ? Mtking ^(edits) 06:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:FOOTY has taken a common sense approach to individual matches, with only those demonstrating particular notability reflected in ongoing coverage after the immediacy of the event, being deemed worthy of articles. This has generally been borne out by the community at occasional AfDs. The 16 articles in this top level Cat are good examples. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, that has worked across the various types of football, and is highly sensible. From my very limited experiance with MMA articles, the editing culture around them seems to be both nasty and spammy. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Agreed, MMA, has one WP:MMAEVENT, however it is routinely overlooked by those creating the articles. Mtking ^(edits) 11:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • It's been suggested to Bigz that perhaps they should go off and found a MMA-Wiki in addition to suggesting that once the notability is proven for the organization having a "List of MMA Promotion events" that is the "headliners" part of card would be appropriate. Heck, even I would prefer to see it that way. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Well now that I have the chance to defend myself, let me first point out that many of you would find that many of this links that are being called 'Evidence' does not reflect any bad behaviour that can be used for such a discussion (take Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#Ultimate Challenge MMA 2 as example of this). Many of these links are being used so out of context that to use these as an excuse to ban me from taking part in MMA related topics is a hopeless battle to fight. Also you'd find that the canvassing accusations were later dropped due to the fact that it could not be proven that I was 'picking' who I was notifying about AfDs that they would be interested in. But seen as we are taking about disruptive editing, I would like to point out that users like Mtking and Hasteur have made numerous comments under keep votes in many of the AfDs seen above, and a couple of which they would tag a user in a way that would downplay their keep vote as much as they can without being openly called for a personal attack. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 2 is a recent example of this, which if anyone looks under the vote made by CookBookCharlie, he makes a good point about the notability of the event, then tagged under his signature, was a pointless comment saying that " CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." which was written by Hasteur in this case. You would find that this is a similar case for just about every single AfD above. The only reason I comment under the delete vote is because the keep voters are constantly getting stick from anyone who disagrees with our views so I pretty much do the same with them by asking them how they believe that their choice of methods to delete the page counts towards being an accurate way to decide on the matter (many of which actually say something like 'Delete' per [mentions a user who previously voted delete and gave a reason]). This is not right, and I find this complete idiotic to call for me to be banned on MMA topics whereas the accusing user/s ae not exactly angels in disguise in this debate either, hence a WP:BOOMARANG effect will most likely come out of this. BigzMMA (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that ... it's your attitude/behaviour in these discussions that has landed you in hot water. There's right ways and wrong ways to do things: WP:BATTLE is not the right way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The vote by CookBookCharlie is what we call a SPA (Single Purpose Account) that gets registered for the singular purpose of attempting to dilute consensus by adding viewpoints that are unfounded and contrary to WP policy. I linked to the entire conversation as it exists and not to individual diffs so that uninvolved editors can see the entire context of your commentary. And Finally, Boomerang would only have applied if MtKing, TreyGeek, and I had commited significant faults in terms of WP policy and practice. As I noted just before the evidence section that I am involved in some of the topics, It's up to uninvolved readers to figure out if my behavior has been a contributing factor to this problem. Hasteur (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any kind of sanction on BigzMMA, but support topic ban from MMA article on Mtking who has thus far demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of the subject and is just going about indiscriminately trying to delete as much MMA content as possible to the point of absurdity. This farce here is nothing more than an attempt to silence someone standing up to his bullying. --The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support MMA Topic Ban or Indefinite Ban Almost since the first day that BigzMMA has been here it's been his way or his way. When articles were properly deleted via AfD he promptly recreated them and was given a temporary block for doing so. He is often combative with people who have a different opinion of the notability of MMA articles, whether it be in AfDs or with revisions to WP:MMANOT. He has consistently been pointed to Wikipedia guidelines and policies with little change in his behavior. No matter how much people have attempted to work with him or teach him it seems he just doesn't WP:GETTHEPOINT. The fact that in his comments above he states the evidence shows no bad behavior on his part just amplifies the issue more to me. A few days ago I would have supported a limited topic ban or mentorship for BigzMMA. However, his claims above that he has done nothing wrong has taken those options off my table. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban. I was originally thinking just a topic ban until I saw their recent post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination) where they state "An encyclopedia keeps record of EVERY that has happened". Now in a new editor that would be cause for someone informing them how wikipedia works but this editor is hardly new and has been informed several times. This is an extreme case of WP:IDHT and, until they are able to work more collaboratively and accept that the community as a whole can have a different idea of what's notable to what their idea is, I think they are definitely a net negative to the encyclopaedia as their actions are so disruptive. I suspect a topic ban or a site ban would effectively be the same thing for this user, but don't think it's worth running the risk of them moving into a new area and creating articles on what they think is notable but the community does not, hence support for an indefinite site ban until they show they understand our notability guidelines and that they understand that community consensus trumps their individual view. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban; like Dpmuk above me, I don't see any indication that the problem would only be limited to MMA articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban I daresay that no one has been a bigger target of Bigzmma than I have (see above postings). He was the reason that I spent a month away from WP near the end of last year. Since he first started editing on WP he has insisted that his way was the only correct way and that everybody who disagreed with him was wrong--no matter what the topic. After his initial bans I thought he had settled into more productive editing, but the AfD discussions of the past month have showed me he is still combative and sees no value in the opinions of those who disagree with him. He still doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is built upon consensus. Papaursa (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well then... There is nothing else to say really, it obvious that this 'case' is entirely based on targeting one user who shared a different opinion to other users and they don't like it one bit, and for this reason it looks like I am going to get banned from Wikipedia. By doing so you all have admitted that Wikipedia is truly a one dimensional place that only selective information can past the mark here, despite the fact that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! Before anyone else comments or casts a 'vote' your all better off asking an admin to just close this case and work to block me now, because its as clear as day what this was all about.

Someone tell me something though, if I was the other way round with this, voting delete under the same manner as your all accusing me of being voting keep, would this case even happen? Would you all go out your way to set up a Topic/Site Ban just to stop me giving my opinion on a matter on which you would agree with? Because I don't think so, I think that if anyone agrees with you, you'd may as well call them your best friend, but in my case, we all know what disagreeing with any of your results in as clearly seen by this case. What this is, and I haven't used this term in a long time, is like a lynch mob back in the 1920s, in which you go out and take someone out based on them being different to you. Well you all better get that noose ready, because I am now done, if the result isn't blocked, I going to quit using Wikipedia as of the end of this case regardless of the result. I hope that all of you feel proud today, because in my books forcing someone out of something like this is something I wouldn't be. And all this just because I disagree with the way you guy think? Utter disgrace!

But you know, I'm glad of this in some ways, because being addicted to this thing has made me lose touch with society a bit. Its not that it affected my social life, as I still go out as regularly as I always have, but the fact I drain a small portion of my days on here defending pages, creating pages etc where I could be enjoying my mornings, go to the gym among other things. Now off here I can do what all you people wish you can do - enjoy the hot weather, drink, party, just do things. God no wonder any of you want to remove me, "if you ain't fully dedicated to Wikipedia, then we will block you" should be the motto for users before they create an account here. Because you guys will either drain their entire lives to making me enforce these stupid policies, which many are actually guidelines by the way!, or be blocked from using this site altogether.

Well, finally, as probably my final words on here, I would just like to say that Wikipedia is a joke because all people like you being power hungry and obsessed with any control because of your little penis'. I hope all you nerds enjoying playing 'World of Info-Craft' for the rest of your lives whilst I go get laid, get smashed, have a laugh and continue to be a part of the fastest growing sport in the world today. I am going to train MMA, watch MMA, buy MMA, support MMA and be recognised someday for what I tried to do on here. I am glad that you all are happy to waste each hour, of each day for the rest of your lives on here, and I most happy that you dorks know your place in life at least :). To end this I am going to use the words of Mr Chow from The Hangover "SO-LONG, GAY BOYS!" :D BigzMMA (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As a parting shot, I personally think you lack the seriousness (possibly competence) to edit a real encyclopedia. You refuse to get the point, view this place as a battleground, and repeatedly act uncivil. In real life, this would be called being a jerk. Due to your problems, I think you'd have a hard time in real life. You don't have to be 100% dedicated to Wikipedia to be a contributor. You just need competence, a clue of what you're doing, seriousness (to some extent), and some maturity. My 6th grade math teacher would say: "You're a spaz." I wasn't trying to make personal attacks. Remind me (one way or the other) if needed. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Just before posting this parting shot, BigzMMA restored a significant portion of his sandbox into 2012 in Super Fight League including prose that was previously deleted. I went through and cleaned up the double article into a more workable list with a preamble that clearly identifies the article as a list. Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:AE

I know that AE is about the last place most admins want to end up at, but we seriously need a little input from a few other good admins. If I could offer you a pay raise, I would, but all I can guarantee is that your efforts will be much appreciated by the AE Adkins admins (if not necessarily the disputants). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we have to go on the Adkins diet? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Doubling the salary ought to do it! Wikipelli ^Talk 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate the autocorrect on my iPhone!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do admins at AE receive the ire of disputants? I figured that their anger would be directed toward the other disputants and toward the arbs, not toward the clerks. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually it's not too bad; I've never gotten completely ripped by anyone, although I've had my subject knowledge questioned a couple of times (as is happening right now). Some will even thank you, from time to time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A problem with AE is that admins who regularly work there tend to get burned out. So what's needed is new admin victims fresh blood. Experienced non-admin editors can also help out by reviewing cases, since the volume of outsider comment that keeps ANI brightly lit (with both attention and indignation) is absent at AE. Mostly what we have there is indignation by involved editors. So outsiders can help at AE by contributing a mainstream opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with that. For Nyttend's benefit, administrators' roles at AE are not that of clerks, but of judge, jury and executioner all in one. Which, yes, does tend to provoke some anger. Many disputants are sufficiently firmly convinced of the rightness of their own position that they have little wrath to direct toward their opponent (whom they regard as something akin to an unwitting embodiment of evil, or at least someone with whom it's not worth trying to remonstrate), but plenty for uninvolved administrators whom they expect to instantly see the obvious rightness of their position...

So yes, the judge/jury/executioner problem does mean that the presence of rather more uninvolved and clear-headed witnesses, evidence reviewers and advocates (to continue the metaphor) would be very useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for Bigsean0300

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted, discussion has run for over 24 hours without any opposition - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bigsean0300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ongoing socking and vandalism. This would be just a formalization.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Clearly disruptive and vandal account. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Waste of time" collapsed

Why? Is there any fear that his edits to Wikipedia aren't currently being or will not be reverted on sight and his socks blocked? Waste of time to have this discussion. --Jayron32 04:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not comfortable with using de facto bans. If I was more bold I could've just as easily used one here. For all intents and purposes he's banned.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Again, ignoring the fact that what we name the situation doesn't change what we do, what additional actions does this proposed ban cause to happen in the future? Given that Bigsean lasts about 30 seconds before every sock is blocked, and all edits are reverted, what additional protections against him does the ban proposed by this discussion provide? What a ban allows us to do against an editor is already happening and will continue to happen. It's already happening, and if it makes you uncomfortable to name Wikipedia's relationship with Bigsean a "defacto ban" then don't call it anything. But whether or not we call it anything, it still happens exactly that way. Ban discussions are useful for providing remedies or restrictions against users where they are not currently being dealt with. Bigsean has been, is being, and will continue to be dealt with in an adequate manner, insofar as this discussion doesn't actually provide us with any additional tools to help us deal with him, it is a pointless exercise. --Jayron32 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) If you think this is such a waste of time, then why do you even waste time debating it? Yeah, a ban is not going to be much different from the current situation, hence the nominator's "This would be just a formalization" statement. Honestly, a ban isn't going to de facto accomplish much more (hence "formalizaton"), but it's not going to hurt anything, either, as far as I can tell. This would be an open-and-shut case if not for this "waste of time" tangent. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There have been people who tried to say, "My account is blocked, but I'm not banned!" as an excuse for making new accounts and socking. This just puts an end to that kind of silliness. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Gimme a fucking break. No it doesn't. Never in the history of Wikipedia has an admin unblocked someone who said that. "Oh, sorry, go back to harrassing everyone and vandalizing articles since you were never formally banned!" Also, never in the history of Wikipedia, has the enacting of a formal ban actually caused a troll to stop. We need to stop pretending this matters in cases like this. Ban discussions are useful when they provide additional ways to stop someone who needs stopping. This discussion doesn't. --Jayron32 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I don't freaking care about what the user does after this. This'll just make it so that we can rollback on site without having to cite the "elastic" clause of the Rollback policy, since it'll be covered by the banned users clause. If you want this to be unnecessary for Rollback to occur, propose that it also applies to any sockpuppeter.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Who has stopped you from doing that before now? --Jayron32 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC) If you want a "fucking break," stop fucking posting in this fucking discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Interjecting into a community ban discussion with "just de facto ban and be done with it stop wasting time" and then continuing to fight over it wastes a lot more time than just letting the discussion run its course. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• support As one who has both suffered these attacks and helped to clean them up. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support There's no place on Wikipedia for people who just sock and vandalize. Jtrainor (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - No reason to believe this user is here to be constructive. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Vandal account. Carrite (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime

We’ve got a handful of activist editors abusing Wikipedia to denigrate a commercial product. The problem stems primarily from the article’s title, “Pink slime”. The subject of the article is an industrial food processing method (which, not surprisingly, isn’t named “pink slime”). The title “Pink slime” is, according to multiple sources, used by ‘’critics’’ of an industrial process – though it's obvious to anyone that that the title itself is clearly POV. In spite of several good-faith efforts to work with these editors to change the name to something more neutral, they refuse to budget citing Common Name (which specifically does not apply to POV titles). Several solutions exist including redirecting the article to an existing article already describing the process to changing the article’s name to something more neutral. However, these efforts have failed. The failure stems from a small handful of editors critical of the process and unconcerned about Wikipedia's neutrality. Since the side representing industry would be immediately branded as editors with a blatant COI, it is up to us – administrators – to uphold Wikipedia’s integrity in this matter and both warn and override the activists. I’d be happy to do this myself since I have the tools and have no stake in the article. However, I feel it would be better to bring this to administrator attention beforehand rather than after simply to ensure I’m not somehow mistaken in believing that the title “Pink slime” isn’t a blatant POV violation (a pillar of our encyclopedia) and not protected by WP:COMMONNAME, a policy which specifically excludes POV titles. Rklawton (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an important issue to raise, just not here. Please take every word you wrote, and write it again at one of the places noted at WP:DR, may I recommend WP:DRN as an option. Good luck! --Jayron32 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no "dispute" per se. There is only policy violation at a scale that requires multiple administrator participation. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't disputing what these people are writing, why did you even start this discussion? If there is no dispute, leave them alone. If there is a dispute, use WP:DR as suggested. --Jayron32 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of "pink slime" to describe this food additive has gone well past the stage where only critics use it, it's entered the popular vocabularly via the media (not just ABC News, as the article's lede implies), which is always looking for more colorful language (pun intended) to goose up the news. Anyone looking for an article on this stuff (I have to admit, I don't even know what its technical name is) is going to look up "pink slime" - but that can be taken care of via a redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the independent reliable sources don't seem to know what it's called, either. BBC News repeatedly calls it "pink slime" (albeit in quotes) in headlines, and seemingly never calls it anything else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Lean Finely Textured Beef". —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they mention that in an aside - but again that article's headline calls it "pink slime". I think the "official title" has a bit of peacock term in it, as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, it's not a content dispute because there's no dispute. There's a gross violation of NPOV by multiple activists that admins need to deal with. Rklawton (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm also not agreeing with you. I'm only saying "says who?" Furthermore, even if it is so, what options, short of having an administrator block someone or protect an article, have been tried and shown to fail? I'm not saying that people don't deserve to be blocked (and in saying that, I am also not saying that people do). What I am saying is that the burden is on you, as the person requesting that admins use their tools, to show that the use of those tools is justified in this case. Being justified means that diffs need to show that a) other methods have been tried and failed or b) that the violations are so eggregious that tools need to be used ASAP. You seem to be asserting b) but asserting something doesn't mean squat. You need to show it by giving diffs showing which user is behaving so badly they need to be stopped now. Otherwise, under what justification do we have to use the tools other than your own unjustfied assertions. It isn't that I am averse to every blocking anyone, but I am averse to doing so on your word alone. --Jayron32 20:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It would take you less time to read the talk page than it did to type your reply. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I did read it. I see a lot of strong emotions on display, but what I don't see is other attempts to bring in outside editors to evaluate the situations, and attempts to establish a consensus by a discussion of level-headed, previously uninvolved editors. "I don't like what they say and they're mean to me" is not a justification for a block, and thusfar, that's all I see as the substance of your complaint. --Jayron32 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any cause for administrative action - it's a content matter under discussion on the article talk page. This is a relatively common issue with controversial subjects that do not have a single predominant neutral name. To the extent policy speaks about how to title the article, that is a content policy and editors are doing what they should be doing, discussing what policy has to say about what the content should be. People on both (all?) sides of the issue have sources to support their position, and may perceive the other side's proposed wording as non-neutral. That's the nature of good faith content disputes. Any broadside attack on a bunch of folks favoring one particular position over the other as activists, policy violators, and otherwise acting in bad faith, better have some pretty strong support. I do see some heavy-handed prose and minor sensationalism in the article, which does strike me as POV. But that's the sort of thing that gets sorted out as articles mature. I see no emergency here. The fuss here on Wikipedia is nothing compared to the coverage this is getting in the world at large. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility of Wikipedia

Again this is something where Wikipedia has a responsbility not to give in to anti-science propaganda; while this stuff is not something I would particularly want to eat, I would eat it without complaint, and quite clearly that article has a bunch of issues. The title in my view would work for the controversy, but not the product. And just look at what I removed from the intro paragraph after a minute looking at the article... I don't even have to read the cite, I KNOW that 70% of american meat doesn't contain this stuff. Cause I have a brain. Egg Centric 00:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see is that "lean finely textured beef" is an industry euphemism, intentionally ignoring that this is a type of beef unfit for human consumption until it's treated with ammonia vapors, and thus ever bit as POV as the term "pink slime". In such a case, where no neutral term exists, I'd go with whichever term is more widely used. (A neutral term would be something like ammonia vapor sterilized substandard beef.) StuRat (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec - addressing Egg) Assuming you're right, good move. The title aside, thanks to you and Slim Virgin for cleaning up the lede substantially. POV is understandable. Bad facts and bad prose are unforgivable! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See, there's not actually any problem with ammonia. But even if there were, it would be like complaining about how ethnic cleansing doesn't actually mean giving brown people free baths. Unless and until pink slime becomes a serious term used by respectable folk (which may well happen), rather than just being something popular amongst hysterics, the great unwashed, and cynical journalists dealing with an early silly season let's stick to a more descriptive term.

By the way, here on the Isle of Man the ground beef I buy in my local supermarket goes through a mincing machine from genuine steak, so there are two animals in it at most. To avoid slime, move to an island country Egg Centric 00:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The point I made above is exactly that "pink slime" has become a "respectable" term, in widespread use by sources that we normally consider to be reliable, such as ABC, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, Reuters, Forbes and myriad other media outlets. WP:COMMONNAME now applies. No one looking for information on this is going to search on "lean finely textured beef" or the other euphemisms the industry applies to this product. For better or worse, the nomenclature battle has been lost. (I also thnk that categorizing this as a "science vs. anti-science" issue is a pretty POV take on it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen numerous news stories recently on this disgusting mystery meat, and every last one of them uses "pink slime". This is meat that Taco Bell found to be below their standards, and as such serving it to schoolchildren is causing a bit of stir, and as a result the WP:COMMONNAME of it is in fact "pink slime". And this is a content dispute that does not belong here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I question whether "pink slime" was that widely used until a recent publicity campaign, in place of the industry term. Similarly, in the last two days there has been a blitz of news items about "crushed insects added to food" at a major coffee shop chain; must we move the article Cochineal about a widely used food coloring to the trendy shock term "crushed insect food coloring?" It is more encyclopedic and less POV to use a term which has been in common use by government and industry than to switch to some tabloid shock term. Edison (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the question of whether or not "pink slime" is an acceptable term has long been settled. It is, clearly. *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is "slang". It is also now the accept WP:COMMONNAME for the stuff. This happens, language is a living thing. You' be surprised at how many of the words we now use in "proper" communication started off as slang. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should push government/industry POV by endorsing their euphemisms. In another example, the Reagan administration insisted that they did not invade Grenada, but only performed a "predawn vertical insertion". Are we therefore bound to use this silly term, rather than call it what it actually was ? No. See Grenada#Invasion_by_the_United_States. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If all of the history books and the majority of contemporary coverage of the Invasion of Grenada actually did use the term "predawn vertical insertion" (which clearly didn't happen, but this is your own example), then yes we should be using that term on Wikipedia. I doubt that we'll ever have to worry about that sort of thing though, since people are pretty smart generally speaking. Convoluted euphemisms are unlikely to gain traction among the general public.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro-"lean finely textured beef" sockpuppetry, and presumed paid editing

There has been an assertion above that "activists" are unreasonably promoting the "pink slime" name. However, it now appears that there are sockpuppets (some rather cleverly named ones at that) promoting the "lean finely textured beef" name [89] [90] [91]. We don't really want articles run by activists, but even less do we want articles run by sockpuppets, which in this case can be presumed to be sockpuppets run by commercial interests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You say "sock puppets" but you provide an example of only one. Are there more than the one cited and since blocked? In the meantime, we've got several sources specifically saying that "pink slime" is a term used by those opposed to the process whereas there are no sources saying this is a neutral term - yet the article title persists in taking the point of view of the opposition. Users claiming "common name" are 1) violating WP:SYNTH in their attempt to "prove" their case (no sources, just a list if references that use the term), and 2) haven't actually read "common name" where POV article titles are prohibited. In short, real sources support "pink slime" as a POV name, no sources actually say it's neutral, and several activists are abusing Wikipedia in order to promote their personal agenda by blocking any move to change the article's name. This is wrong - and admins need to step in and say "enough". Rklawton (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The name "pink slime" not a "Point of View", it's a simple name that has been created by the media to describe the subject. This is pretty standard stuff in English, especially when Authorities (companies, governments, or whoever) come up with their own convoluted names which at least partially serve the purpose of obfuscating what the name is supposedly describing. It may be bothersome to some people that various news editors are doing their job in situations such as this, but Wikipedia should not be second guessing them. We shouldn't be participants in the debate itself, which is what Neutrality is all about.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rklawton - Its origin was biased, but it's become exceptionally common usage now in a way that is not credibly arguable anymore. This is unfortunate, as a more unbiased discussion in the media writ large would be more fair as to whether the product is good, bad, somewhere in between, edible, safe, etc. However, it's not Wikipedia's job to drive the external discussion. The external discussion is settled. The media are uniformly using the term. We can't fix that problem. Our job is to accurately report what people say and use outside in the real world. They're using "pink slime", in otherwise neutral news reports, to the almost total exclusion of any other name.

I think you're edging into something along the lines of BLP for items rather than just people. That may not be wrong - but it's not standing Wikipedia policy or foundational moral policy. You have to make the case to change what we do. Changing it situationally before there's a policy in place is not a good response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would add, briefly, that yes, I consider that if someone has used sockpuppetry to advance their cause (in this case the cause was the ridiculous "fine lean beef mince" name) then yes, they have used "sockpuppet accounts". The first account they used was one account, and the sockpuppet account was the second. Or vice versa, for as many accounts as they used. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A bunch at this point. Making it tough to keep a straight face for some of their edits. Collect (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Noticeboard participants in AfD and other debates

When one is deliberately attempting to mask one's multiple sockpuppets, it is a bad idea to start a discussion in a high-visibility noticeboard.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a case of informal coordinated voting (a distant cousin of meat puppetry) going on at the AfD on the Mundane astrology article. FT/N appears to have a history of trying to control pseudo-scientific material, like astrology, on Wikipedia. The FT/N discussion about this AfD began on 21:42, 25 March 2012 by an IP that is likely user Saedon. The discussion at FT/N involved a number of other editors active on this board, including AndyTheGrump, Dominus Vobisdu, 86.** IP and IRWolfie-, all of which voted in the AfD debate. Another FT/N participant The Hand That Feeds You suddenly appeared, having taken no part in the Mundane astrology discussion at FT/N, with the AfD nomination at 21:42, 26 March 2012. Following that, yet another FT/N participant Salimfadhley appeared out of the blue to vote. One of these editors claims that as he/she voted against the proposal, it is evidence that no coordination is taking place. That claim doesn't fit with the evidence. Just examine the following exchange at FT/N concerning the Mundane astrology article: Frankly, it looks to me to be nothing but a POV-fork of our existing Astrology article, with all of the criticism taken out: It should probably go for AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Just what I was thinking. Would support delete if proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC) I considered an AFD as well but thought that maybe there actually was a difference between mundane and regular astrology. Going over it now I agree with ATG and would support as well. Saedon (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC) These voting practices, even if they involve open debate at FT/N, are intransparent to other users, as they are not announced in the debates. The prior discussion also stacks the voting in favour of the FT/N viewpoints. The result is that decisions are not based on the merit of discussions but numerical superiority of those favoring clamping down on ideas at the margins of science, like astrology. Often the knowledge of the subject matter is limited and the attitude "the less, the better" is displayed, no matter the possible encyclopedic value to readers. Finally, these practices appear to have a [contentious] history. Some discussion about these biases has taken place at [FT/N]. However, as these practices are in violation of Wikipedia rules, they should be ended or managed to avoid biases. Romulanius (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC) This was Romulanius's 5th edit ever. Cardamon (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I'll comment further on this later, but for now, can you provide a source for your assertion that astrology is "at the margins of science"? From all evidence available, it is at the margins only in the sense that Mozambique is 'at the margins' of the Arctic circle ;-) Talk about fringe theories... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Right - let's start by looking at the thread at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mundane_astrology. What Romulanius has conveniently chosen to omit was the next post in the thread - mine: I suppose one could argue that it is a subtopic: 'Western' astrology as applied to natural events, politics etc - but any policy-reflecting subtopic would have to follow Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience, and not present it as factual. If there are sources which can demonstrate that this is a genuine subtopic within astrology, we might do better to stubify the article, removing any claims to effectiveness, and other unsourced material (e.g. the 'Planets and areas of life' section, which lacks any inline sourcing), and balancing it by adding the appropriate material on pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[92] (and of course the discussion continues...) Does this look like "informal coordinated voting"? Nope. It is a discussion related directly to FTN matters - a policy-violating article that needs dealing with, whether by editing, merging, or deletion. As it happens, at the subsequent AfD, I !voted for a merge with the main astrology article - but only after looking further into the question as to the extent to which it could be justified as a topic. As can be seen, I was doing exactly what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do - which is to look at the issue of notability not on the basis of my own opinions, but on the basis of sources (or in this case, the basis of the lack of them). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC) You know, quite a number of Wikiprojects use a tool to bring AfDs in their field to their attention; I fail to see how mentioning a discussion on a noticeboard devoted to the policy would be any different, indeed, it's arguably rather less likely to result in coordinated voting. 86.** IP (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Just a thought, Romulanius: Don't blame Wikipedia's systemic flaw of promoting the bias of the majority, on the biased majority? Anarchangel (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) This entire complaint is much ado about nothing. These are the same conversations that take place on every other notice board. Sometimes, that means an article being discussed does not appear to meet Wikipedias guidelines. Other times, it just means the article needs work, or the board editors feel there is no problem Doesn't matter if it's the Reliabke Sources board, Notability board, Fringe board, or Original Resource board. This is not vote coordination, in any form. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC) And then there is the question of whether say Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology could ever be used for 'coordination'. Actually, it isn't a question at all - what does it say at the top of the page: "This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC) I'd argue that the OP is essentially saying that any post to a noticeboard or project page about a specific article is coordination that's bad. A view that, to me, is patently foolish. Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Except for Anarchangel, the replies so far are from editors participating in FT/N discussions. They see little problem with the issue at the basis of the complaint: advertising among like minded editors and vote stacking the debates. No surprise there. What is needed is feedback from administrators who are not themselves involved in such practices and can give an objective appraisal. Romulanius (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Are you asking for a response from administrators that don't respond to posts on noticeboards? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) A few administrators who aren't part of a noticeboard gang would do the trick. ;-) Romulanius (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Would that include the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard gang? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC) No, of course not. There is a difference. FT/N participants have a particular bias in their views when it comes to topics like astrology. By advertising and heading en masse to debates on things like astrology, due to their numerical strength they tend to overwhelm unsuspecting editors with different views. Off-site coordination is frowned up on. Intransparent on-site coordination is no better in such cases. Just read the complaint, again! ;-) Romulanius (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Umm....ALL of Wikipedia could be said to have a "particular bias in their views when it comes to topics like astrology". See: WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE and WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Are you sure you in the right place? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) FT/N is the official noticeboard for discussions of WP:FRINGE policy. Could the OP kindly tell me what purpose a noticeboard should serve (in his opinion) if it cannot be used to notify other interested editors of the existence of suspected policy-violations? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC) This noticeboard could be considered biased by the OP's logic: certainly they're trying to marginalize a particular set of opinions here. It is clearly desirable to attract informed comments at AfD, rather than no comments or poorly-informed comments. Should I not comment at deletion discussions on architectural topics because I see an AfD for a notable building at WP:ARCH, because that's just biased? Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC) By the same logic we should ban all special-interest noticeboards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Salimfadhley, FT/N seems to be a special case. Acroterion, if there was a noticeboard on "tasteful" architecture and the refined participants there were to go in numbers to stamp out articles dealing with "horrid" architecture, would you be fine with that?Romulanius (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Romulanius, just out of curiosity, since you appear to know far more about the inner workings of Wikipedia than the 15 edits in your contribution history would seem to indicate would be likely, it seems reasonable to ask whether you have previously edited Wikipedia under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC) This is about group behavior and not individual editors. Romulanius (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC) No it isn't. You have made specific accusations against particular editors, including me. Now, are you going to answer the question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Question What administrator action is being requested here? FT/N is a board like many others and what happens there is what happens at many others, including boards WP:NPOVN. Participating in these boards is not a blockable offense. There's really not much here an admin can do, as they don't have the power to unilaterally change the way a board works, and no one afaik has broken any policies. SÆdontalk 01:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I don't want to be conspiratorial about this, but this was Romulanius' fifth edit, apparently. Meanwhile, looking at Talk:Mundane astrology, and editor named EagleEye (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked, who made similar sorts of rants and points ([93]). Are they the same? 86.** IP (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC) We are having an open discussion about procedure in AfD debates on the basis of good faith. I am an editor acting in good faith. My participation here is predicated on all of us acting in good faith. Romulanius (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Would you care to answer the question, yes or no? 86.** IP (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC) @Romulanius: Don't take WP:AGF as a commitment to throwing out our common sense. You opened a complaint here, so your own behavior is subject to investigation. Please answer the questions that have been asked here: have you edited under another ID, and in particular, did you edit as EagleEye? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC) The complaint makes no sense, those mentioned didn't even vote the same way. Also, WP:FTN is where you Discuss a possible fringe theory, and instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories can be posted to the board. The article was originally filled with undue material. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC) WP:BOOMERANG anyone? Romulanius (talk · contribs) and Modelte (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed socks of Plankto (talk · contribs). Socks blocked. Technically comparing them with EagleEye is  Inconclusive. WilliamH (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC) ...And we didn't need to resort to astrology (mundane or otherwise) to see that coming ;-) Could some kind uninvolved person please mark this discussion/farce as closed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC) While there is potential for project boards to be used for canvassing, this instance seems to be much ado about nothing, and now the OP is acting a little dodgy, going to AN in their first dozen edits... and spouting AGF. Let's close this and move on. Shadowjams (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeking second opinion Special:LinkSearch/*.grupo-rbd.com

To me it looks like there has been a significant change to the links for grupo-rbd.com in that they now all head off to a single page at facebook, and now seem at odds with our Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:External links processes. Happy for someone to bash away and see what they can resolve here. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

CfD backlog

WP:CfD has a bit of a backlog dating back to March 2. Closure or at least input would be appreciated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing username

To whom it may concern;

I recently started editing Wikipedia using my real name as my username. I have since become uncomfortable with this. If possible, I would like to have this username permanently deleted and replaced with the alias "incorrect horse battery stapler". Thank you.

Gabe Radovsky (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CHU is the place to go and maybe you could pick something a little more user-friendly for others? Just a friendly suggestion. ([94] for anyone who isn't a fan btw)--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog

There is a massive backlog at WP:RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Secretlondon (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dantherocker1

Resolved

 – User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody can stop him. He is very annoying, he has been at it for more than a year now, its getting very old. Somebody needs to stop him. MassFavonia (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Any specific problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could you provide some diffs and a brief explanation that tells us what needs to be stopped?--Jayron32 00:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He made a anew account, called User talk:Pooping In Reverse and has used it against Wikipedia's policies. Although it is blocked, someone needs to shut him down and make sure he can't create any more accounts. MassFavonia (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So says you. Do you have any evidence? --Jayron32 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just what we need - a basket of socks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

Could someone please move User:Don't stuff beans up your nose back to Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose (along with the associated discussion page). Someone moved this into their user space, and I tried to move it back, but forgot to change the namespace back to Wikipedia, and now I can't undo it. Also, this frequently-cited essay is up for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

fixed by Salvio giuliano. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And move protected too. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can we fricking remind people that a game or two may be funny, but ridiculous nominations for deletion are still disruption, and will be dealt with accordingly. April Fool's does not mean IAR for a few hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing it on one day does not hurt, especially for non-mainspace pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So then create WP:Don't stuff Lima beans up your friend's nose, use pinto beans instead; make it humourous. Then nominate it for MFD - you then draw people's attention to your humour. Mindless MFD's are not positive, and are truly a disruption in all cases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

↑ Truly Awesome. benzband (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Please see the recent history and the article's talk page, over this pot issue. I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over. One editor claims (I think) that I'm way too involved to do this--well, my involvement is more with WP:BDP than with anything else, I think. I'll leave that for wiser editors than I; feel free to scrutinize my involvement and my decision to protect. I'm off for a little while: I don't mind being overruled, so if you think I'm totally in the wrong (or three days is too long), you don't have to ask me for my opinion--but I hope you'll overrule with some kind of consensus (the subject matter is important enough). Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I support Drmies's bold use of the admin tools with respect to WP:BLP. Taking corrective action like this and then highlighting the actions for community review are precisely the right things to do in this case IMHO. I think the protection should be removed as soon as the edit warring is clearly over (whether through discussion at BLPN or the article talk page) which given the swiftly changing nature of the subject hopefully will be in less than 3 days. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor drmies mentioned above. I think he is not uninvolved, as he edited the article to remove the information, and was discussing the removal on the talk page. His change was reverted, then he locked the page. I _do not_ think his action raise to any level requiring any kind of penalty/punishment/wrist-slap etc. I do think that his changes should be reverted and if needed acted on by an uninvolved editor (sigh, IAR). BLP does not apply, the subject is dead, and the information was released by his parents, so BDP also does not apply. INformation is EXCEPTIONALLY well sourced (12k-40k gnews hits depending on how you search). ongoing posts and BLP and RPP. Significant kudos to drmies for reporting himself, an example of good honest conduct for us all to follow. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree - there's been a lot of edit warring regarding whether we view this as a biography or an article about a news event and subsequent editing that supports one view or the other. I generally don't favor it, but in this case short-term full protection will give some breathing room, and one hopes the subsequent admin oversight will help to adjudicate the differences in opinions about what goes in and what does not. This is a high profile article, and needs some help. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement about the way the article is focused has nothing to do with the reason it was protected. Further, while there was some minor edit warring going on, it was dwarfed by the amount of productive edits happening, which the protection prevents. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, on your last point, the prevention of productive edits, I couldn't agree more with you, and I hate full protection. Who knows, maybe in the next couple of hours, when all the admins come back from cocktail hour, you'll get your wish. In the meantime: cheers. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This case centers on the actions taken the night Trayvon was shot, but it has morphed into a larger 'event', if you will, than just an isolated case of someone being shot. This has a national dimension now, with implications for how we proceed as a society with discussions of race and how we deal with others. Such a discussion naturally brings up more about the background of the various players, and as such it becomes hard to decide how to deal with that content. As is often the case with these high profile articles, these things will get sorted as time goes on, but we need to be aware how our coverage of things affects people's perceptions of the two primary faces in this story. The media, as usual, is not being cautious, often showing a very youthful Trayvon photo alongside a booking photo of George. And as a result of this, we see people wanting to take the law into their own hand. How do you counter bias once it has a foothold? I'm not entirely sure. But if we have reliable sources for the good and the bad, we need to try and write as unbiased an article as we can. This is a terrible situation where we really have no positive outcomes, and the best we can hope for is just a little less bad. -- Avanu (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Avanu, I agree - and that is one of the reasons I have been urging that we abandon the "infobox person"s and switch back to the "infobox news event" or one of the other event infoboxes, which would not include the possibly POV pictures. Same reason I changed the first sentence - the article is about an event, not about the individuals. I'd like some backup on this. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just one point to share with User:Gaijin42, without commenting on this specific case. We don't drop BLP concerns about a person 1 second after their last breath. They still have a family and community, and immediately after their death they have generally been provided the same protection as we would a BLP from improperly weighted, negative material. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin used powers in content dispute (Comments from WP:ANI)

I moved the following content from the "Admin used powers in content dispute" section of WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

In the article Shooting of Trayvon Martin, it seems that Drmies used admin tools to advance his/her position in a content dispute by first protecting the page and then changing to his/her preferred version.[95] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While I do think drmies qualifies as "involved" for the purpose of this discussion, I do not think his action rise to the level of needing ANI. There are several discussions ongoing of this issue in different venues. I think it was inappropriate of him to fully protect, and it should be unprotected, but no further action should be taken against drmies. He self reported himself to the AN post as well, which is further show of good faith on his part.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Trayvon_Martin.2C_Marijuanna
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Protection
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#protection.21.3F

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Please discuss these matters here, since they were brought up here before the other thread got started. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin, Please note that after Drmies protected the page, Drmies changed the page to his/her preferred version using admin powers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest his edit be reverted and the full protection be left on. After all, them's the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant if the changes he made were in accordance with WP:BDP (BLP), imo. BDP and BLP are far more important, and I don't see that as admin abuse. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call by Drmies. In this context it is necessary to be conservative in what we include in the article. We cannot at this moment verify that everything appearing in the media is factually correct (we have to wait in effect for the media to get a consensus on this), and we cannot yet tell what will turn out to be undue weight. Wikipedia is not the nine o'clock news - we can wait for the overall picture to emerge. Removing undue material, and material that is still in some question as well is protecting the article is quite reasonable as a policy enforcement - different to using tools in a content dispute, and I don't believe WP:WRONG VERSION applies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies's changes were not in accordance with WP:BDP and this was discussed on the article talk page. No one has disputed the validity of the info that Drmies deleted after page protection, not even Drmies AFAIK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, presumably he *did*, or he wouldn't have deleted it for that reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call, laudable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The content dispute involves an admission by a spokesman for Trayvon Martin's family that he was suspended for having trace amounts of marijuana in his book bag. No one has disputed this. Drmies felt that it was irrelevant and shouldn't be in the article. This is a matter that should have been settled on the talk page, not by using admin powers to essentially win an edit war by making a change after protecting the page.

It's shameful that so many admins/editors here are supporting Drmies's action and more aren't stepping forward to do the right thing. I consider this to be at least as significant an issue as the actions of Drmie that caused this discussion. It appears that neither has much chance of being corrected. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, this was a good call. With current events of this sort you will get muck-raking of only minor relevance; usually tangential material attacking one or more of the subjects. I expect the other guy will get some at some point also. To a certain extent we extend the BLP policy to individuals recently deceased - particularly in controversial circumstances such as these, with a larger family closely involved. There are a number of soapboxy phrases in the article as well that may need to be looked at, and individuals politely reminded of policy. This is exactly the reason we should have some sort of moratorium on news events for at least a short time. Tsk. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• However, if the consensus on the talk page is that the information is relevant and should be included, then it should. Silverseren^C 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bad call. There wasn't even much of an edit war here, since two of the three removals are attributable to Drmies himself (including the one where he edited through protection). Yes this is a controversial issue, and yes the topic needs to be addressed with care, but I don't think Drmies handled this well. The facts surrounding this particular issue are clearly verifiable and well-sourced (i.e. reported in many major news outlets and confirmed by the family spokesman). At this point, the decision of what to say about Trayvon's suspension is mostly an editorial issue to hashed out through discussion rather than one that needs the blunt hand of an admin to decide. Personally, I'm not sure this information serves any good purpose (and there do seem to be some people who want to use this information to paint Trayvon in an unfair way), but having a single participant use tools to enforce their viewpoint is not good either. Drmies was aware of and had participated in the talk page discussion about this issue. At the time of his protection, it seems like the majority of the talk page participants favored including this information. It would have been much better for him to request help at one of the noticeboards, such as BLPN, RFPP, ANI, etc., rather than for him to simply exercise the tools to enforce his preferred version. Obviously, there needs to be discussion and consensus about what do with this content, but I don't think a three day protection is necessary here. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with editing this article in any way, and it was only brought to my attention after a post at the WP:BLPN.[96] As an outside observer, it appears that Drmies is abusing their admin tools[97] to win a dispute they're involved in.[98][99][100][101] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am also uninvolved here. In my view, Drmies made a tough but good call here. Upon first viewing the situation, I was ambivalent, though leaning towards my current position. Reading this thread has led me to firmly support his actions. Drmies made it clear when he created this thread that he protected the page so that discussion could go towards determining whether or not to include the material without having a contentious revert-war occurring on the page: "I have extended full protection of the article for three days) because I think this pot thing is not OK, and this needs to be hammered out instead of being warred over." I see absolutely no indication that he was intending to "win" the dispute, as AQFN alleges; rather, he desired that it be productively resolved. It's not like he locked down the article indefinitely—the protection expires on Friday. In light of the fact that this is a highly-sensitive and high-profile article, it is in the best interests of the project that we follow policies like WP:BDP strictly. Contentious material should be thoroughly discussed before adding. Drmies was acting in good faith, and I support his decision here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A pause is a good thing - these articles get written too fast, and usually end up a mess for some lengthy time (usually until the SPA's with a strong view on the matter lose interest). --Errant ^(chat!) 01:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good call. Admins can't make everyone happy. This is a tense issue that's grabbing the attention of the nation. We need to be very careful moving along with this. Again, WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia; it isn't going to be written overnight, so why ruch? 131.62.10.20 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with this comment. Why do we even have articles on topics that are only covered by news sources and haven't been noticed by stabler media? If something doesn't get sustained coverage and sustained interest over a period of time, it's really not encyclopedic, and we shouldn't attempt to force an article like this to carry the latest rumors. Good job on making the tough but solid decision, Drmies. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call? It wasn't even his call to make. He was clearly WP:INVOLVED in the dispute. Admins are not allowed to use their tools in content disputes they're involved in. How anyone could defend such blatent misconduct is beyond me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies made two major admin mistakes in this dispute.
  • First he was clearly an involved editor in this discussion. Whether he felt that his involvement was minor, is irrelevant. He had already taken a side in the discussion and eventual edit war. When he decided to fully protect the page, he violated the sacred trust we give administrators by violating WP:INVOLVED. He took it upon himself to use the tools that he has been granted to him and and protected a page in which he had recently been involved in a dispute.
  • Secondly he clearly violated the terms of WP:FULL by continuing to edit the page, supposedly to the preferred version that agreed with his side of the argument. In my book, that type of display sickens me. What gives him the right the continue editing a page after it had already been fully protected. This type of behavior breeds distrust and animosity.
• Just because some have chimed in here in agreement with Drmies actions, do not confuse the fact that you may agree with the points made by his side of the argument, and the fact that he twice violated his duty as an admin, by abusing his position to gain a foothold on the article. I am a very mush 'uninvolved editor on that page. I have in no way made any edits to the page or to the talk page. Even after taking a quick look at what the discussion is about, I probably would have taken the side of Drmies. But this does not excuse the blatant violations of admin tools, and in no way should be allowed to go unpunished. Without some form of retribution, these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses. We have these rules written for a reason, we should honor them.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you really just issue a call for "retribution"? 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Did I stutter?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll take that as a "yes", in which case, no, your request for "retribution" is declined. 28bytes (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And you consider yourself the personal judge and jury in this case? Does the opinion of anyone else on this page, have any bearing? Guess not.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • You are the only one here demanding retribution and punishment. Everyone else here is cognizant of the fact that Drmies brought the matter here himself for review, explicitly turning the decision whether to keep the article protected over to the community. That's what good admins do, when there are objections to an admin action they've taken. It would be extremely stupid to "punish" him for his obviously well-intended page protection, especially given that he put it here himself for review. 28bytes (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Drmies remains defiant and based on his latest post,[102] there is significant concern that they are likely to abuse their admin tools in the future. Let's give them some time to reflect on their actions, but if their attitude doesn't change, a desysop may be in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Oh please. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                • That's a sound argument. You really got me there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • I have made my argument all over this thread. The question at the heart of this dispute is whether we should care about WP:INVOLVED over WP:BLP in this specific case; i.e., whether our own social rules that have virtually no impact outside of wikipedia should trump the broader social and legal implications of a biography of a living/recently-deceased person in this very controversial and high-profile case. Was Drmies involved? Yes. Should another admin have made the protection? Probably. Is anything lost by holding our horses until the end of the week—or sooner if consensus for a removal of the protection is achieved—to re-add the material? No. Was the protection done in self-interest or bad faith? No. The only self-interested people here are the ones calling for his head on a pike for one single protection that expires on Friday. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • "to gain a foothold on the article": Sorry, I call BS. Drmies made it clear in starting this thread that the protection was put in place to allow for more productive discussion. That is a blatant assumption of bad faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Good Faith was lost, the moment he edited the article just after fully protecting it. If this was a case where he "only" protected the article, then came here to ask for assistance, then I can see a case for assumption of Good Faith. But he continued to edit the article, without any thought to what damage that would do to the trust we give admins. No I'm sorry, he lost the ability to claim Good Faith when he twice violated our trust in his ability to handle the tools we gave him.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • • (edit conflict)Step off your soapbox, sweetheart. Nobody's impressed. More telling than any of your tediously self-righteous vitriol is that Drmies recognised that his action might be viewed as problematic by some and started this thread in the first place. How is that a bad-faith action? Re: "these type of "violations" could grow into more serious and offensive abuses". No they won't. Go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. (Edit-conflict addendum: DGG below sums it up perfectly) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Are we standing up for a buddy? Facts are that he twice violated the trust he was given. How can he ever be trusted again?--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Do you have evidence to support that loaded question? Or are you automatically assuming that since I find your comments to be nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd, I must be 'in cahoots with the enemy'? That's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and I suggest you drop it. Drmies has by and large shown himself to be a reasonable contributor and administrator, and I see no reason why erring on the side of caution on a highly sensitive topic should mean any loss of trust. I find it especially telling that Gaijin42, the user who first brought this to the community's wider attention, does not advocate for anything other than the protection being lifted, whereas you—an individual with precisely zero ponies in that parade—advocate for the most laughably draconian solutions based on nothing but irritating self-righteousness. "Retribution"? Really? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • • First you ask if I have evidence. Nope, just did a simple duck test on that one. You confirm it with your quick knowledge of Drmies editing history and admin uses. Second, I'm not sure why you are turning this into some sort of personal disagreement between the two of us. The fact that you disagree with me is evident, the fact that you find me nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd is fascinating. How my opinion that another admin who twice abused his tools should be punished, would somehow give you this much hatred toward me is beyond compelling. Third, you ask why we should not error on the side of caution. Who's caution? Yours or mine? Who gives one person the right to dictate what is right or wrong? What needs protection from bias, when the very definition of bias in this case is in dispute. Vey bad form form very bad form indeed. Finally you mention that Gaijin42 does not advocate anything more than the protection being lifted. Has this protection been lifted? Has the edit that was made by an involved admin on a fully protected page in violation of two separate and distinct guidelines on admin tool use, been reverted? I have no "pony", as you put it, in the parade. Nor will I in this case. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that these violations occurred. Whats next then? Admins blocking other editors with whom they are in dispute with? Admins deleting pages because they don't like what they say? All in the name of "erring on the side of caution". Its clear that you feel that he was justified. Do you also agree with him in the content dispute as well? Guess what, So Do I. That still doesn't give him the right to take matters into his own hands. Now that he has violated these admin guidelines, its fair to say that his judgement as an admin, in the eyes of others, will always be in question. He not only violated the guidelines, he violated our trust in him. For that, no amount of words can express just how damaging his actions were. Not only to himself, but to other admins and users as well. How will he ever be taken seriously as an editor and an admin again, when there will always be doubt in the minds of those who disagree with him? He blew it, plain and simple.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • I have had little to no personal interaction with Drmies. I have only seen him around the AN and AN/I boards, and I have a positive impression from my observations. You, on the other hand, see one single action and mount your high horse to charge into battle as a righteous crusader for WikiJustice. No no no no no. This I take issue with. Anyone who demands "retribution" for such a matter is behaving in a "nauseatingly self-important and downright absurd" manner. Do we care more about our own little world here, or the actual world which we describe in our articles? That is the central question with regard to "bias" and "caution" in this matter. Generalising this incident to other situations is inappropriate given the nature of the article. The hotly-debated and polarising nature of this case in other places online and in real life makes this different than a simple editor dispute on-wiki. Should another admin have placed the protection? Probably. Has it been established that the material should be re-added? I think so. But those are not reasons for the desysopping of or the commission of other acts of nameless "retribution" on an admin who made a quick call in a sticky situation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • I think Drmies did reasonably, especially by bringing it here. I am not sure I agree with his position, but this is the sort of topic where caution is needed. That an admin shouldn't protect their own view is basic, but even it has exceptions. If one;s own view is that possible bias should not be introduced into a particularly sensitive article , there's something to be said for taking direct action. (He should , of course, have asked someone else to do either the block or the edit, but I do not think this in the situation a great crime. Protecting articles from potential bias until the matter can be discussed is a good thing to do, even if done less than ideally). DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made between the protection and editing by drmies, and the overall BLP issue. the ends do not justify the means, IAR aside. And further, there is considerable debate as to if drmies is in the right regarding the blp issue (see the ongoing BLPN discussion). as this was NOT a clear cut violation of any policy, but merely drmies opinion of such, the action to protect and break rules via IAR should carry less weight. However, I do fall back to my opinion below, saying it does not require any sort of administrative punishment etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Well said. But the potential "bias" was still in dispute. The fact that he considered it "bias", and others did not, creates a big problem. He took the position that it "was" bias and took what he considered "appropriate" actions. The fact that he "thought" he was right is irrelevant. The fact that he made these actions in violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:FULL is undisputable. An admin should never take these type of actions when they are clearly involved. I'm not sure what Drmies was thinking, but what I am hopefully sure about, is that he will think twice before ever doing something so blatant again.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I do believe you raise very good points. The edit summary after protection gives the reason; "sorry, but WP:BDP does, and I protected fully precisely for those reasons. i hate using my admin tool here, but i feel i have to" Rather then handling it with dispute resolution he instead used his admin tools to protect and revert the very edit which had an ongoing discussion on the talk page by various editors over the course of two hours prior to the page locking. He protected the page and made commented about bringing it to the attention of the boards. [103] He should have done that first before taking such drastic action and even then he should have passed it onto a third party as he was involved. Instead he used admin tools to protect and remove the material to his side when no further edits could be made, telling them to 'hammer it out'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He reverted the page to the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute so that the contentious material could be thoroughly discussed before being added. WP:INVOLVED is a policy which ultimately only matters to us lot of internet-warriors, whereas WP:BLP/WP:BDP has much broader social and even legal ramifications for the project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• He removed the entire matter of the terms of the suspension along with the 'contentious' material which came from the family, some of which was already present and would seem fair under WP:STATUSQUO that those remain. Only the marjuana issue was added at 18:25, which came from the family itself and did not seem to be a BLP issue due to its confirmation from the family. [104] His first comment on the talk page was 19:50. [105] He removed the material at 19:51. [106] Which was re-added 'Status-quo' applicable at 20:06 by Richard-of-earth. [107] Then it was removed at 20:08 by Ledrush. [108] Discussion continued and it was re-added at 20:30 by Truthsort. [109] 10 minutes later, Drmies protected the page and reverted the edit again. [110] As two other pieces unrelated to the discussion why were those removed if it was status quo? Seems that a discussion was taking place, created an edit war and when other issues were brought up protected the page and reverted additional material that was not contentious. Going by that policy those two sentences should not have been removed and that since consensus was formed against his and Ledrush's view the best thing to do was bring it to dispute resolution rather then take action to end the edit war which his action started in the first place. I'm all for policy, but the situation warranted a different course of action then the one taken. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who initially brought up possible conflict/involved admin editing, I think its clear he did break the letter of the rules, by participating in the discussion, taking action, and when reverted protecting, but based on drmies reuptation and long history, i do not feel any action such as block/desysop etc are needed, although his action should be reversed. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question Is there a single editor here who examines the evidence[111][112][113][114] and thinks that Drmies wasn't involved in this content dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  but, but... zOMG, BLP!!!1!1!!1! (just sayin'...)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• As an editor who brought Drmies action to WP:ANI and is watching this spectacle, I don't think that Drmies or the editors supporting him should have administrator tools because they do not appear to be trustworthy. . --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think Drmies's actions warrant a desysop. Merely agreeing with those actions even less. I think your suggestion is an overreaction. Reyk _YO! 03:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You need to clean house here. Their actions show contempt for Wikipedia and demean the project. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree. I haven't decided whether I agree with Drmies's actions themselves, but it is obvious that he was acting out of a desire to protect Wikipedia's integrity. You seem unable to tolerate differing views. You call for extreme punishments for not only the "perpetrator" but anyone you deem guilty by association, as the first resort. This attitude is unhelpful. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • There's an awful lot of ABF in the comments here, and some ridiculously over-the-top calls for blood. This'll get sorted out sooner or later, and the encyclopedia (which is not a newspaper) will not suffer from not having every last little bit of breaking news in it before it's clear whether it means anything or not, or even if it's actually true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe that the page should be reverted to semi-protection, other material is awaiting removal under other concerns raised during its protection and while Drmies actions were not the best course of action, they do not warrant 'retribution'. People make mistakes. If the editors concerned (myself included) harbor no desire to see action taken then who is to condemn him? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies made the right decision. On what planet is it essential to immediately record some minor and very recent claims regarding traces of marijuana? Removing such over-egging per WP:BDP shows good adminship, as does protecting the article and bringing the issue here. Rather than having the issue resolved by an edit war, community consensus can readily determine what happens—no puppies have been injured in this incident. If consensus agrees, the edit can be re-instated and the protection removed. Yes, the admin action is unusual, but the article relates an extremely unusual case (the shooting is regrettaby not so unusual, but the associated interest is). Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the negative marijuana information was leaked from the police department, most likely to malign the dead victim and to support the case made by the police. Considering that somewhere around 50% of teenagers in the U.S. have cannabis in their bloodstream, this is unimportant information. Keep also in mind that the victim was suspended because cannabis residue (which I think amounted to smell only) was found in his belongings. It should be remembered that this is not evidence of usage, as cannabis residue is sticky enough to find itself on just about every conceivable surface. All one has to do is come into contact with someone who uses it, and bingo, you're a potential user just by touching the person or something that they have used like a book or a DVD. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is entirely incorrect. Editors held off during the leak and waited until it was confirmed from the family out of BLP concerns. It was not residue, it was a plastic bag of pot. And I really would contend that you can get a positive pot id from someone who merely comes in contact with any object or person who used it, specifically a book or dvd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you are entirely wrong. The leak was negative, and as every reliable source on the subject states, it concerned "an empty baggie containing marijuana residue".[115] Do you understand the difference between "residue" and "empty bag" containing residue? There was no "plastic bag of pot" as you claim. Further, you are evidently completely and totally ignorant about the concept of cannabis trichomes, so I suggest you do the research before you "contend" anything factual ever again. If you need any further assistance or corrections on any other misinformation you wish to share, please let me know. I'm here to help. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Good call Drmies. By locking the article and bringing the discussion here he seems to have done the right thing. Calls for desysop over this are frankly ridiculous. --John (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just to pile on, this seems a sensible decision. Admins are expected to make tough calls at times, and Drmies' protection was reasonable, especially given that he or she then asked for a review of their action (admins hoping to use their admin tools to 'win' disputes don't advertise the fact that they've done this here!). Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hate to ask again; but why is the page still protected when the discussion has moved on, concensus has been formed and major corrections need to be addressed. Over 10 specific pieces of the article need to be addressed now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies made a call, and then promptly asked for community input here. That warrants desysopping of him and anyone who agrees with him? Sheesh. LadyofShalott 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Does it matter whether it was a good call or not? It's done. The question is how to now proceed. Support your colleague. Improve the article. Why waste energy with crucifixion? Span (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't his call to make, and what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time? What to do next? RfC/U or ArbCom?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I can assure you that you will be rightly laughed out of both venues by everyone except for Jojhutton and Bob K31416. Re "what's to stop them from abusing their tools the next time?": I shall tell you the same thing I told Joj: go play with your slip'n'slide somewhere else. Nobody else thinks it's fun; you're just getting the front lawn all muddy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Lothar, that's the third time you've used rhetorical flourishes to respond dismissively to other people's comments. Given that some people are tense and some are likely to overreact, I would suggest that there are probably better ways to convey your points. After all, you yourself said we need to avoid fostering a battleground mentality. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Lothar likes language. I admit my tone has been less-than-cordial here, to say the very least. However, I really see nothing deserving of respect in this fallacious squawking for desysopping and/or "retribution". Others have phrased it more pleasantly, but the general consensus seems to be that boarding the M/S Hysteria to RfC/U- or ArbCom-land is not even a remotely reasonable way forward. I just translate that into more "zesty" terms. Whoops, looks like I already did.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:GRAPEVINE, an explicit part of the WP:BLP policy, includes an exception to WP:INVOLVED. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:GRAPEVINE did not apply because the material was well sourced and did not violate WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin powers in content dispute — Poll: What would you do in a similar situation in the future?

There is tremendous support for Drmies here. I'm interested in the attitudes of only the administrators here regarding what you would do if you were in a similar situation in the future as Drmies was in at the article. Drmies situation was that he was working on the article, then protected it, and then made an edit after it was protected.[116] Please indicate whether you would or wouldn't do the same thing if you were in a similar situation in the future. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• If I were working on an article and became concerned that there was a serious BLP/BDP issue, I wouldn't hesitate to use my administrative tools to address it, and (depending on the seriousness of the issue) I might also edit the article to address the violation after I had protected it. I would then present the situation in a suitable venue for outside input, and abide by the result.

  The community, the Foundation, and ArbCom have all repeatedly endorsed this sort of aggressive and proactive approach to BLP issues. There is no deadline, and no administrative action that can't be undone; if a short period of protection leads to a more thoughtful discussion of the issue in question, then that's a clear win, regardless of who placed the protection. Admins are expected to be responsive and accountable, and Drmies fulfilled that responsibility here. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think in a true case of BLP/BDP, Drmies would have been justified. It is my contention that the information added did not violate BLP/BDP, and if it did was not such an egregious violation to warrant full protection without prior discusson on BLPN etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How are we to determine a "true case"? By discussion? But a discussion necessarily takes place after the fact. Drmies made the assessment that there was a significant risk of a such a BDP violation, and installed the protection so that a discussion could be thoroughly conducted to determine whether or not to include the material without having the potential BDP violation waving around in articlespace. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This exact point, in reverse, is the exact problem with this topic. Are we simply to trust that any administrator, at any time, can make a judgement that any edit to an article who's topic is a "living person" (which is a moving target in itself) is "bad" and therefore the article needs to be protected and edits need to be reverted through protection?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator is, well, an administrator does mean that thereY is a significant level of trust involved. Without the community's affirmation of trust, a user will not gain access to the tools. Thus, an admin may make a bold action in an outstanding case, based on the fact that their very status indicates trust. In such a contentious case, the acceptable follow-up to the protection would be to have the action reviewed in a public place—that we trust administrators to make the right call does not mean that they always will; they are humans like us, after all, and will make some mistakes. Submitting the action for review shows that the administrator recognises the trust given them and their desire to maintain it by keeping open dialogue with the community. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh bull. Administrators are not moderators. Never have been, and the recent attempts by a (not insignificant) subset of them to become moderators is... undesirable. The trust that administrators have is the trust that they will not abuse their tools in order to impose their personal views on Wikipedia. These content issues absolutely should not be resolved through the use of sysadmin tools. If you're an admin and you feel that anything that you're about to do requires review (which is a commendable thing, by the way), then stop and ask first. Nothing that happens here on Wikipedia is important enough that it can't wait the minutes (hours, at most, for important thing) required to bring the subject up for debate.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the dispute was deemed "resolved" when the protection was put in place, or that Drmies's view was at all "imposed" on the article, other than that it was the WP:STATUSQUO pre-dispute. The full protect was put in place not to keep the material permanently off (i.e., enforce Drmies's view), but to discuss whether or not it was acceptable to include it without having potentially problematic material waving around in the wind on an article where "contentious" and "hot-button" don't even come close to describing it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, What do you think of asking for protection instead of doing it yourself? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would certainly be inclined to do the same; I'm probably the least likely person on earth to invoke BLP for anything, and even I saw the really obvious problem there. It wouldn't have hurt to ask, but RfPP gets backed up fairly frequently (and when you try it from the admin side, it's much more understandable) and this seemed like a pretty urgent issue. Bob K31416, I suggest you drop your crusade here because it's clear you're not getting anywhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the material was supported by reliable sources, what was urgent about it? I'm interested in your opinion on this. Thanks. Heres the deleted material for reference.[117]

"Initially Kypriss stated "He was suspended because he was late too many times." His father originally said the suspension was because he was in an unauthorized area on school property, but he declined to offer more details. Later a family spokesman said that Martin was suspended after traces of marijuana were found in his bookbag. Trayvon Martin had no criminal record."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I changed to the full cites for <ref name='MiamiHerald'/> and <ref name=SCHOOL/> after noticing that someone put up a {{reflist}} in the section "Admin powers reference" where they wouldn't otherwise show up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• As a general rule, if I believe that an article I'm involved with needs protection I'll generally go about it in one of two ways. The first would be to request another admin the review the situation and if justified protect the article. The other would be to protect the article and then request another admin to review my actions and revert as needed. Having said that, there will be cases where I'm convinced that protection is needed and there should be no question so I'll protect and leave it at that. There is no cookbook that we can create that is going to spell this out for every case. And no, while I have been looking at this discussion occasionally, I have not looked at the article being discussed here or the edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just butting in for a moment: RPP does have a tendency to back up--just look how often Jasper Deng and others drop a note on ANI, and I help to clear up that backlog often enough. But I probably would have gone straight to AN or ANI with my request (it's much faster) if I felt that this was not a matter of some urgency. And if I had protected five seconds earlier I wouldn't have committed by second mortal sin, reverting the re-addition of that information (and let it be clear that there was no talk page consensus for adding it either!)--but that's beside the point. Yes, there are other venues, but sometimes they are slow. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies did fine. He probably made an editorial misjudgment in removing the info, but the error was on the side of caution, which is precisely what one is supposed to do in this situation. It's easy to make mistakes in the heat of the moment, so "remove first, discuss afterwards" is fine per NOTNEWS. The edit-through-protection is not a big deal as long as it can be sorted out afterwards, which it was. Trouts to those going overboard calling for escalation. A more strictly neutral approach could be to blank the whole article (that is guaranteed to not be anyone's preferred version) and ask uninvolved editors to decide what to restore. That might be preferable in a more intense dispute with heavier involvement, but would probably have been overboard for this. 69.111.193.46 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ya, he made a major editorial misjudgment. An Admin should never put themselves in a position like this one. Even if the article should have been protected, it should not have been him. Then doing the unthinkable by actually editing the article after the full protection was in place, to the version that he was currently advocating for on the talk page. End of argument as far as he was concerned. --JOJ ^Hutton 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Unthinkable? Hardly. Reversion to the pre-edit war (or "most stable") version is the norm. See e.g. last year at Holodomor in which a full protect was called in to defuse a heated edit war, and the protecting admin reverted to the pre-disputed content version. In this case being discussed here, the version that Drmies reinstated was the "most stable" version. It also happened to be his preferred version, but he was only following the norm of reverting the disputed content until consensus could be established for its reinstatement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, Here's the first revert of Drmies.[118] It appears that he reverted to an unstable version which started an edit war. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most stable" only means "lacking recently-added contentious material"; in the Holodomor case above, the "most stable" version was very contentious—the article was full-protected to that version nevertheless because clear consensus had not been established for inclusion of the new material. At any rate, this discussion here is pretty much a WP:DEADHORSE that should be lain to rest. The full-protect has been gone from the article for days now. I do not see any lasting harm done that would warrant further ruckus-raising here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Uhhhh Lothar ...... the source of the contention was Drmies. That section that he edit warred in was evolving in a productive way before he came on the scene and made multiple reverts of the same reliably sourced material. This reminds me of a scene in Casablanca. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And—if you'll excuse the brusqueness—so what? Contention is contention, and just because something is spat out by a news agency does not make it sacred and unremovable. The full-protect was put in place, discussion happened, the full-protect was removed, material was added back consensually. Nobody got a mark-o-shame on their block log or anything. Drmies put the action up for review. And given the shitstorm here, I don't think that this is a situation likely to repeat itself. Abuse of tools implies actions that are demonstrably malicious and bad-faith—nothing anyone has said here has convinced me that that was the case here. And nothing convinces me that this is a matter still worth beating to death here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The accuracy of the reliably sourced material was not contentious. Drmies removed the material about Martin's school suspensions because he thought it wasn't relevant,[119] while leaving in pro-Martin material about his school record, such as "His English teacher, Michelle Kypriss, reported him as being "an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness." " --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

kk. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request lift of full protection

Protection changed to semiprotected by MBisanz, 1RR restriction put in place. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trayvon's family has confirmed that he was suspended for having traces of cannabis in his possession [120]. Drmies declined to unlock the article when I brought this up to him, suggesting I come here instead. So, here I am. The issue that caused him to lock the article is no longer an issue, so someone please downgrade it to semi-protected. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Cla68 is correct that I referred them to this forum: this is not just up to me, considering the dramahz. I still feel that there is no reason to include the information: I did not remove it (just) because I doubted the veracity, but because it is undue and excessive and all those things. That the family confirmed the story, well, they had little choice, did they. The problem is, in my opinion, the suggestion that this had something to do with that. Anyway, I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser. I welcome any admin to undo the protection, either by reducing its length or its status--but that should be an admin who has managed to read the discussions on the talk page (I just did) and has decided that there is a kind of editorial consensus which will ensure some modicum of stability. Whatever the 24/7 news cycle reported the last three seconds, whatever the family was forced to acknowledge, that really shouldn't be the only decisive factor. Anyway, I am going to leave this to you all, but I take some courage from the fact that some admins I really respect have weighed in here and have not overruled me. You know who you are; thank you. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Undue, however, is not a reason for full protection of an article, but for a talk page discussion. Undue is not a BLP violation. SilverserenC 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Without reference to this particular case, undue can be a BLP violation, per "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Then undue my protection. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re "this is not just up to me" — Since it hasn't been unprotected, apparently it is. Re "I've already abused my sacred powers and all that, so I can't in good conscience revert, because then I'd be a pussy on top of an abuser." — Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers? Why don't you folks start by reverting the edit Drmies made for his own interest after full protection? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?" Please slow yourself down and read the the thread, champ. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Re: "Does anyone still think this person deserves admin powers?". Yes. Yes, I do. Reyk YO! 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Fairly straightforward case from one side of "Waaaah! He protected a version I don't like! Everyone agreeing with him isn't fit to be an admin!" in my opinion... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There is no emergency. How would an edit war help? Just wait for the discussion above to reach some outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Why assume there would be a fresh edit war? The article has generated several hundred edits, mostly productively. In the current episode, Drmeis was the only one to remove or add content more than once. There is discussion of this issue on both the talk page and BLPN, and I doubt any of the participants are eager to start a fight. There is no emergency, so why cut out all editing and stop the article from being improved? Dragons flight (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I don't think there would be an edit war, because currently the consensus at the BLPN discussion on this is that the information is ok for the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC) As I've had to point out to others recently, Noticeboards do not make decisions, they only offer advice. I'm not weighing in on this debate, but you can't say "BLPN says it's okay" as if it carried authority. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There would be an edit war if some editors repeatedly tried to add the material and others deleted it. There's no clear consensus either way on whether it should be there. Deleting it while under protection is an expansive interpretation of BLP, but for heavens sake people, please don't agitate for desysopping admins every time you disagree with an action. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There are two sides to this issue. On one hand the material at the time would seemingly insinuate the family was covering up a criminal past that somehow would have made it a "good shoot" and thus be defamatory and offensive. On the other hand, it has clearly emerged as a major narrative in the story. Drmies made some comments that were a bit too spirited on the other side, but this would seem to be a case where there is an obvious BLP violation and there needs to be discussion about how to handle it before proceeding. I think Drmies should approach these things in a calmer manner, but beyond that I see no ill action. Honestly, I would be opposed to reinserting that material without some balance added. A recent statement I saw on the news showed the mother accusing the police of trying to slander her son's reputation with these revelations, so that's a starting point for approaching it in a more balanced manner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC) There's a simple way around this. I'm going to reduce it to semi-protection in a couple hours at 18:00UTC AND apply 1RR to it, blocking anyone who reverts more than once until such time as the full protection would have expired. That should end any edit wars very very quickly. MBisanz talk 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The fact is, the full protection that was added - much as I tend to viscerally not like full protection ever - resulted in the editors coming together on talk and actually talking, and reaching a reasonable conclusion. Exactly what full protection is supposed to do. Now we're back to semi - that's fine. But I would strongly urge the semi to be of considerably longer duration as it had been prior to this kerfuffle - this article is a high profile POV magnet and the semi-protection allowed us to edit with some kind of sanity. Also, could a note be added to the Talk page to let editors know about the 1RR? It's on the edit screen, but I think it's a pretty big restriction that it's only fair to let people know before they go to edit and many editors don't read AN. Thanks Tvoz/talk 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)  Done MBisanz talk 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you MBisanz, and all other contributors. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything else?

At this point, the page protection has been changed to semiprotect, a 1RR is in place, and there's no consensus for censuring Drmies (beyond perhaps a WP:TROUTing for protecting & reverting it himself instead of asking another admin to step in). Is there anything else to be done here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What? My reading of the above is that Drmies receives a commendation. Yes, those who believe Wikipedia must immediately record every detail of a recent event think a trout is warranted, but many others have supported the admin action. Nothing further is needed, other than to thank Drmies. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a good lock, but his apparently involved status threw a wrench into things, as this report demonstrates. Appearance of impropriety and all that. Trouting isn't exactly a punishment. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:01, 28 March 2012 (

• I agree with Drimies on the substantive issue. But I strongly protest his/her use of admin powers, when involved, and find that it brings the admin corp into disrepute, as do the other admins who would condone such abuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Alanscottwalker. Drmies due to his strong opinions on the Martin case should not have made that call, and bringing it to AN after his actions had been strongly questioned does him little credit. His thanking, individually on their talk pages and collectively here, of those who have supported him, is unseemly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• To expound upon this matter in a slightly less scatological way, administrators are called upon to exclude clear BLP violations from Wikipedia, using every tool at their disposal. That articles go live immediately make problems of this nature quite pressing. When seconds count, administrators who make good faith and reasonable efforts in this respect, then present the issue for review at this noticeboard, are to be commended, even if they are ultimately found to have erred on the side of caution. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• No. They are called upon to act as administrators, when they are uninvolved. Not otherwise. Administrators who make mistakes are not commended for their mistakes, generally, or specifically when involved. It's not an error on the side of caution, it is an error on the side they are involved in, and thus dis-caution. If a user cannot find an uninvolved administrator, it is not pressing (or the admin corp has failed in general but that does not make the involved administrator error not error). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no urgency. It was POV pushing by Drmies. See discussion in above section. (E.g. Bob K31416 02:21, 31 March 2012 ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, your immediate call for de-adminship appears over-reaction, and although such is not an excuse for the over-reaction of other admins, it does provide context. Condemnation not sanction, is in order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. That's not the case at all. I didn't immediately call for de-adminship. I originally didn't suggest any action against Drmies or anyone else. I was trusting that the admins here would see Drmies' inappropriate behavior as an involved admin in the article and correct it. It was only after most of this long discussion occurred, that I briefly mentioned that Drmies shouldn't have administrator tools because he didn't appear trustworthy.

Alan, I can see that you're trying to get a consensus for some kind of statement against Drmies' actions, but I don't think you should do that by trying to blame me for the bad comments of some of the editors and admins here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. When it comes to action, of all the admins who participated in the discussion here, there was only one that proposed a useful solution and used his admin powers to get the article back on track, and that was MBisanz. Many of the others were concerned with protecting Drmies.--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Administrators are given specific license under Wikipedia policy to protect articles that they have edited, etc when "clear BLP issues" are in play. WP:GRAPEVINE, part of the WP:BLP policy, is clear that it includes an exception to WP:INVOLVED. This is an important policy point and one that should be reemphasized as a result of this discussion, since apparently (from this discussion) it's both little-known and contentious. In any case, it's policy. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:GRAPEVINE did not apply because the material was well sourced and did not violate WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough rationale. --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Specific" is the key and they should get it right. Which was not the case here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• As this was not a BLP issue, but rather a case of IDONTLIKEIT with a BDP, there's no justification for the full protection and certainly no reasonable way that an administrators should be commended for taking INVOLVED action to revert IDONTLIKEIT material and to install full protection. Sanctions? No. Trout? Yes. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin powers references

Gmail Tap

I want to redirect Gmail Tap to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google%27s_hoaxes_and_easter_eggs#Gmail_tap but the page is locked to only administrators. Could one of you do this for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngril (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. As an FYI, you could have done this yourself (I'm not an admin either), but I assume the problem was that you used the full url, when you should have just used #REDIRECT [[List of Google's hoaxes and easter eggs#Gmail Tap]]. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't use the whole URL, I'm pretty sure... But thanks anyways! Youngril (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it was something to do with the title blacklist? Graham87 01:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD backlog

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure

Month old backlog. Any uninvolved admins like to come help out? - jc37 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mindless creation of "suspected sockpuppet" categories from years old, with resulting problems

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

---

User:Rich Farmbrough has created hundreds of categories yesterday, despite having Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

The problem is that this is done in a mindless, bot-like fashion, ignoring all potential problems this may cause. Among the creations are many categories from the "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ..." group, from years ago, linking e.g. an IP address to an editor for some edits done years ago (e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grimkn1ght), even though that IP is probably no longer linked to the same person, making the catgeory essntially useless. Other cats like Category:User rue-0 and Category:Wikipedians who like The Wedding Date are already up for deletion. Many more "Category:Wikipedians who like ..." have been created, from the categories only used by User:Lady Aleena/Media franchises. Considering the number of redlinks still remaining there, stopping these creations now may be useful.

A clear example of the problem with these creations is e.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ghirlandajo, based on a tag from 2007, and where the discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghirlandajo concluded that there wasn't enough evidence at all to link the two. However, thanks to this creation now, five years after the fact, this has been "officialized" and the editor smeared for no good reason at all.

The editing restriction was installed because of earlier instances of mass creations, including category creations, with poor or clearly unwanted results. Apparently Rich Farmbrough won't head the restriction without some firmer action though. The categories need to be chekced and deleted if needed, and the creator encouraged by some means to stop this. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that after this report, Rich Farmbrough has deleted some problems I noted, and hidden some others (the "Lady Aleena" redlinks). Any indication that he will change his approach and/or look for remaining problems himself instead of relying on others to check all his edits is so far missing. Fram (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Again? How many times is Rich going to violate these restrictions? This is going to turn into a Betacommand case again unless something is done soon. Personally I suggest a short sharp block to remind of the restrictions, and maybe if it continues in the long-term a desysopping. I don't want it to come to this, but you can't always ignore all rules, like Rich Farmbrough is. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "IAR", he has just (again) edited a fully protected template to add a rule that adds some pages using the template to a certain category created by Rich Farmbrough in 2010. Sadly, that category has just been deleted one week ago after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15#Category:Empty categories. So not only is he ignoring the rotection, he is also ignoring the community consensus at CfD after only a week. And it seems furthermore that his edit isn't having the intended effect, since it is listing on-empty categories into the "cat:Empty categories", e.g. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of "The Template Vandal" had one subcategory, 33 entries and the "empty categories" cat at the time of writing... Fram (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is especially concerning given that I had to threaten to block both him and his bot (and did block the bot) just a few days ago in order to get him to stop another series of violations of his other editing restriction. I recommend he be blocked for at least a month, as he's been blocked for 1 week and 2 weeks previously for violation of these same restrictions. However, I also have serious concerns that an administrator is unwilling to work with community-placed restrictions; that sort of conduct seems incompatible with the trust needed to hold the tools. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Therefore, let's not do what happens every time RF is brought here. Instead, let's do one or more of the following:

1. Archive this thread immediately, as nothing is ever actually done about RF, so why waste the time?
2. Block RF now, for at least a month or two.
3. Take RF to ArbCom and have him desysopped

→ ROUX ₪ 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I say 3 should be done immediately. He is clearly misusing the tools at this point. Silverseren^C 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support 2 and 3. Rcsprinter (deliver) 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Rich's positive contributions far outweigh these occasional "trips off the reservation." – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. How to oppose this argument? It like a mirrored WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let me try:

A: the edits. Say, RF operates a bot that, in multiple tasks, does 10,000 edits with "only 0.5%" errors. That is 50 erroneous edits. Now (apart from how to find those 50 edits and how to repair, in a stack of 10,000 edits!), who of us could do 50 such edits manually without going free? Already after ten such edits I'd be caught and send home. Now RF can do so because "these other edits are so useful"?. Please.

B: the behaviour: If RF knows so well how to do a good edit, and by bot at that, why does RF still does not know to differentiate between these ever-discussed edits and those presumed good ones? Has any editor who says "mostly great", like User:Lionel does, ever had a discussion with RF?

My background in this: I am no admin, nor bot-oriented. I have met RF many months ago (in this same subject), but met RF here through another route (template bot request). I am one of those people that the blocking editor Elen of the Roads describes, below, as been pissed off by RF.

Final note: I get a smell that RF is being protected from above. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked Rich. Like Hersfold I have previously threatened to block him for editing outside of restrictions, making volume mistakes and pissing people off. During the Betacommand case we had discussions about the necessity for UAT (testing the final outcome is acceptable to end users for those unfamiliar with the term). Since this UAT f*** up has affected real editors badly, I felt I finally had to block him to get through to him (I tried cussing last time. Didn't work). If someone opens an RfAR, he can be unblocked to contribute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (NB It's not an Arbcom block, it's just a plain old admin block, so if for some reason the rest of the community decides I'm wrong in the next eight hours while I'm in the land of Nod, please just undo the block Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC))

• Good block. Rich is not a bad guy but he seems absolutely incapable of respecting consensus when it comes to his own actions. I would encourage him to take the high road at this point, meaning: hand in his admin bits and voluntarily recuse himself from using AWB or any other automated tool for content creation. Or he can take the low road and wait for arbcom to do it after a lot of bad noise that doesn't improve the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sad truth. See him in a month then. Rcsprinter (orate) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

April Fools nominations getting out of hand

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

---

There are currently over 40 joke AfD nominations, 15 joke MfD's, and 6 joke RfA's. A couple here or there is funny, but this is beyond disruptive. I run a bot that corrects malformed AfD nominations, and it was blocked because it was adding AfD templates to articles like Jimmy Wales, Earth, and Sexual intercourse, because technically they are nominated for deletion and therefore should have an AfD template on them (bots don't understand jokes). The block was done in good faith by an editor who was just doing his best to minimize the damage being done, but when we get to a point where real work is being disrupted in favor of jokes, then I think we've gone too far. At the risk of being a curmudgeon, I feel that next year the "celebrations" need to have limits imposed on them. It's just not even funny anymore. —SW— ^prattle 14:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Among the 'funny' jokes today was proposed deletion of Adolf Hitler and Moon - when it comes to mainspace articles having deletion templates on them it isn't funny, not that many of them were funny anyway. If one or two people get in first with some clever April fool jokes that don't affect the encyclopedia, fair enough, but dozens of people piling on with lame copycat attempts at humour isn't something we should have every year. --Michig (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; I did mine really early on, but with the number of jokes now I wouldn't start a new one. Besides, messing with MediaWiki is so much more fun. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea for next year. If you make a joke nomination and it's not funny, then you get blocked for the rest of the day. It's funny, right?! Look! You're blocked! It's FUNNY hahahahaha! :P —SW— ^soliloquize 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Apply that to the joke RfAs too; there are a couple really good ones, but most of them are just terrible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's very tempting to bring that forward a year. I feel sorry for the people going through real RfAs at the moment.--Michig (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would make for interesting reading anyway, endless discussions of whether a joke was funny, and of the subsequent blocks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates an important distinction between Wikipedia and other websites (such as Google). The comparison invariably arises, with editors citing Google's April Fools' Day jokes as justification for April foolery at Wikipedia. The key difference is that when Google creates an April Fools' Day joke, it doesn't spawn dozens more throughout the site, added arbitrarily by random visitors. But that's exactly what happens here. If we permit a type of joke, it's extremely difficult to limit the extent to which it's committed. The combination of April Fools' Day's "join in the fun" tone and a wiki's "anyone can edit" nature ensure this. Without clear boundaries, we descend into chaos. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are "only" 15 joke MfDs because I deleted like 14 in the morning. This is just ridiculous...and I agree that most of these silly nominations are just lame. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What can we do now to stop this from happening next year? Doing this in article space is not a service to our readers, it's disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be difficult to tromp on, and the attempt would publicize things and well, you know what would happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As Mom said, "First time, funny. Second time, not funny. Third time, spanking." If you can't bother to be creative and original with your April Fools disruption, you can take the day off. Kilopi (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that works for me, and Wehwalt is probably right. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have had to delete three of those "joke" pages now because of BLP concerns. This is getting way out of hand. T. Canens (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm closing some of the remaining joke nominations now. They are disruptive. Wikipedia is not a playground, and the people who think this is a worthwhile use of anyone's time should be editing Uncyclopedia or something else more in line with their degree of maturity. I suggest that we make it clear beforehand next year that the joke is no longer funny, and that misusing Wikipedia processes (such as making frivolous RfA or XfD nominations) for an attempt at humor may result in a block for the rest of the day.  Sandstein  17:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support ↑ this. —SW— ^express 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I undid some of that type of stuff on a policy page a few times today. I think that a good rule of thumb is that anything that would be considered vandalism during the rest of the year and does not involve some creative humor is still vandalism on April 1st. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The highlight was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hung (2nd nomination), now deleted by me as an attack page, in which an article about a living person was nominated for deletion for a defamatory reason - and three experienced editors actually left joke comments.  Sandstein  18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I somehow missed that. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Defamatory? There are many, many, many references for that claim, and a personal opinion about one's taste in music can't be defamatory. That's how the guy got famous, after all; he was kicked from American Idol. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, BLP doesn't necessarily have to have defamatory material. Notice that most of the RfAs were for non-human beings - we don't have a BLA nor a BEO policy, after all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about someone who became famous specifically because people thought his voice was horrible. That's basically the sum of the deleted content. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - When longtime experienced editors just want to have a little fun on a day designed for having fun and pulling pranks, what's wrong with that? As long as it's done tastefully, I don't see a concern with letting some of it go ahead. It's interesting to note that this has been going on for nine years or so and only this year it became a problem for people; yes, it went a bit far this year after I went to bed, but a little fun should still be encouraged and probably agreed upon (in case of mainspace stuff) in advance. CycloneGU (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is you are setting a bad example. Yes, I know this is a phrase you may not have heard since school, but it applies. If experience editors say it's ok to mess with Wikipedia today, what's wrong with passing vandals joining in the "fun" any other day? Frankly, I don't see the difference. A large percentage of vandals are only "having a little fun". Besides that, it does nothing for Wikipedia's reputation. We may as well put a big disclaimer up on the Main page for the day; "Warning! Everything you read on Wikipedia today may be a lame attempt at humour, but that's how we roll here. But it's fine for the rest of the year, promise." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Only this year it became a problem for people"? What on Earth gave you that idea? We have discussions like this one every year, with "You guys have no sense of humor. Lighten up and have some fun, you killjoys!" as the standard response to users complaining about vandalism to the encyclopedia. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the entire Wikipedia should be deleted and everyone permanently blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We already did that, sort of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I was going out of hand, sort of. I request that all joke pages made by me for this year's April 1st be deleted as G7.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I played a large part in the April Fools stuff this year, and I know I'm probably going to sound like a hypocrite saying this, but I agree with you. I'm actually a bit disappointed in myself for nominating my alternate account for adminship; I now realize that, while we should at least have a little fun here, it shouldn't be done in that way. On the other hand, you're not going to be able to convince everybody who participated that these were disruptive; you've convinced me, so it's entirely possible to convince some people, but I'm pretty sure you won't be able to convince everybody. I've seen a few people say that it's just "harmless April Fools' tomfoolery", but it has gotten a bit out of hand this year (the worst part being the blocking of SnotBot). Next year, we need to make sure that everybody knows that, while a little tomfoolery here and there is fine, it shouldn't escalate to the scale that it did this year. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned the blocking of Snotblock as "the worst part". I hope that you realize that I did this to minimize the harm caused by the jokes (the insertion of fake AfD tags and issuance of warnings to editors who removed them), not to enable the foolery to continue.

It's highly unfortunate when a productive bot has to be stopped, but that's what happens when users are permitted to sabotage its task for the sake of "fun". —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I personally try to limit myself to one, maybe two jokes each year. Last year, I went to Meta Wiki and proposed to move the servers to Canada, probably one of the better received jokes of the day. This year, I got in an early joke AfD of Irony (nominated out of coincidence, and someone else then ironically nominated Coincidence), and also marked my own user page as "historical" (not using the actual template, causing the page to be tagged, but just the notice userbox contained within the template copied to my user page). The reason the bot is adding the templates is just as discussed above; people are not following the AfD procedure properly even for joke nominations. I do not argue against limits being imposed, but going so far as to completely disallow it because some people are not following proper procedures even for joke nominations is excessive. I personally look forward to the little pranks each year, but I wonder if it might be best to have a place where a few of us get together and coordinate certain pranks that are known in advance, funny, and thus not likely to be reversed before the end of the day. Anything else can be done in userspace by whoever wants to vandalize their own pages, and other little things like project pages being nominated for deletion are still funny if never done before (if it has, it's not really funny). To summarize, don't try to remove it, but rather try to contain it within a selected area every year. I personally am done for the year and will be closing the Irony AfD myself later today (never mind, someone already did so, good way to spoil controlled fun in this case), as well as the historical box on my userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that we can use things like joke MfDs, but only in something like "WP:April Fools' Day 2012/Jokes/MfDs". At least, no jokes should be transcluded to main pages at all (like joke RfAs not being transcluded onto the main RfA page).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC−)

Agreed. While it was a bit out of hand this year, I don't think we should completely do away with things, just those things that interfere with the mainspace aspect of Wikipedia. As for consequences for next year's out-of-line pranks, I think enforcing a day-long block should not be done unless the user is sufficiently warned first. So, for instance, if someone creates a joke RfA, they should be warned to not do it again rather than be blocked. If they do it (or things like it) repeatedly despite being warned, then a block for the rest of the day will suffice. But only if they ignore sufficient warnings. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke RfAs should not be in the RfA section at all, I would argue, though joke AfDs I don't see an issue with being in the AfD space (note I did not follow step 3 by adding my joke to the list; because it was a joke, I did not list or categorize it) because people would see that a joke is being done based on the article in question. If it were to be deemed that such joke nominations for AfDs should NOT go in the AfD space, then we need to know where to put such joke nominations next year. For instance, someone next year will probably nominate 2012 phenomenon with a rationale of "It isn't real, it never happened". Of course, I might be stuffing beans into my ears here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think all of y'all are cranky bleepity bleeps who need to lighten up once in a while. :-P Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like that. CycloneGU (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If any of them were funny you might have a point. Secretlondon (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny is a personal taste. What you might think funny I don't, and vice versa. CycloneGU (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And whether a joke is "funny" or not, it doesn't belong in the article namespace (which TenPoundHammer vandalised repeatedly, even after being politely asked to stop). —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you or any of us think it's fun, it's being considered disruptive by a pretty substantial group of editors. While we do deserve a break from the hodgepodge of everyday Wikipedia life, we shouldn't be doing things that'll upset such a group of editors. If it were one or two dissatisfied people, then it wouldn't be as big a deal, but we're talking about a good-sized group. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. We only do these as a community. If the whole community isn't at it, we have no excuse for it. How simple!--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that some April Fools' Day things are acceptable, but there are some things that can be considered a bit out-of-line. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This I can agree with. In limited quantities, it's good; excessively, it's bad and not encouraged. CycloneGU (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on what's happened this year, we may need to write a guideline outlining what is and what is not acceptable on April Fools' Day. It'd be a bit tedious to create, but we might just have to do this. I'd be willing to help work on it before I have to return to my real life responsibilities in a couple days. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. If a bot is blocked because it can't understand humor, couldn't detect that there was a humor template on the AfD nomination, perhaps the bot needs to be turned off for this day. In addition POST FACTO discussions should not have a binding consensus on processes that are taken in (albeit humorous) good faith. It's not like the date was sprung on us last night, we knew it was coming for almost 365 days now. Now if a binding consensus about April Fools Day Jokes on WP is to take place, let's have it outright. Also realize that if we outlaw Article space for April Fools Day, we're going to need many new essays/pages in WP, User, and Talk space for the purpose of having fun for this day. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to consider. CycloneGU (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are users getting the idea that article vandalism is permitted now? I see no "1 April" exception mentioned at Wikipedia:Vandalism.
When TenPoundHammer continued inserting jokes in articles (after being politely asked to stop), he expressed a belief that such behavior is considered "harmless", encouraged, and even glorified at Wikipedia. If an experienced editor can somehow arrive at that impression, we're in trouble.
This matter is discussed every year, with longstanding consensus that while there's room for some humor on editor-facing pages (i.e. stuff that typical readers will never see), the encyclopedia proper is off-limits. Why is this unclear to some? —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree that all this got way out of hand. One or two joke noms may be mildly amusing, but this year at least two editors made over half-a-dozen AFD noms each (and most of them were very unfunny). I support a clampdown on this nonsense next year, with a day's block for anyone who does this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• No one seems to be complaining about my addition to the top of RfA, so fun can be had without angering too many people; I suggest we have less total jokes that are better thought out (Ron Ritzman's proposal at WP:VPR was another gem). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally liked Ron's "leaving in a hissyfit" on his userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, him and TPH both. I also made it a point to "AfD" an article with a historical joke rationale, not just some fart joke; those are the kinds of jokes we need. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Point Of Order: SW, your bot appeared to never edit the article I nominated for today. Please your list of example edits and consider only complaining on ones that your bot did edit. Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Luckily no one was blocked this year (apart from the bot). If you're being reverted please take the hint and step away from the computer. I think the closest we have to policy in this area is this from a few years ago: Wikipedia_talk:Pranking#Some_thoughts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not true that no one was blocked apart from the bot. User:Timotheus Canens blocked User:TenPoundHammer. —Lowellian (reply) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That occurred after the above message was written. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that zzuuzz! Best thing I've read all day tbh. ~dee^(talk?) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the most disheartening things to see is the reversion of joke removals. It's one thing to have a bit of fun, but when someone considers a prank disruptive enough to remove, edit warring to restore it is unacceptable. It's sad that this even needs to be said, but if we must place it in an official 1 April policy or guideline (along with such elusive concepts as "don't vandalise the encyclopedia" and "don't set fire to the WMF servers"), so be it. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a few joke nominations are fine. However, we got to a point where MFD and RFA were completely taken over by joke nominations (MFD had a string of 10-12), and I think that's over the line. (Full disclosure: one of those was mine). --Rschen7754 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I agree... No one even notices the good jokes anymore. — Edokter (talk) — 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

That link by Zzuzz gave me an idea. I think it would be perfectly reasonable if we adopt that policy, for April Fools' Day (only). Perhaps add weight to it by including things related to blocks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking we could do: create a policy (or at least a guideline) outlining what is and what is not considered as an acceptable April Fools' prank. As I said in an earlier comment, I'd be willing to help work on this before I have to return to my real life responsibilities in two or three days. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...using Wikipedia:Pranking (forgot to link in previous cmt) as a template.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've got to run a few places, but I'll be able to help out later this evening (between 00:00 and 01:00 UTC). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to have a good read of that talk page before proposing, and especially NYB's words. There's actually a surprising amount on consensus on it for a failed proposal. There's even an underlying assumption, as well as the odd mention, that article space is out of bounds. That would probably be a proposal I could support. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that randomly tagging good articles with AfDs is out of taste. My plan merely involved one article, and I was going to twist it and nominate Coincidence as my single joke next year, but someone already did that as part of this year's. Now I need a new idea for next year. We've had several repetitive nominations this time around, however, and some not so funny ones that took it too far. I like it, but I don't like not being able to keep track of it. If that makes sense without sounding foolish. CycloneGU (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would expect to see an April Fool article somewhere on the main page on April Fool's Day, hopefully not too obvious. Wouldn't it be better for those editors who want to play April Fool's jokes to actually play one via an article, and work together to make it, well, funny and clever? A lot of what has gone on today is what we would ordinarily call vandalism, and at best is repetitive and lame. Joke AfD's could be made to look like AfDs without causing problems, but let's limit it to a handful of funny ones, not dozens of lame ones.--Michig (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted to be really bureaucratic, we could go through everything listed at the April Fools Day page and see what was and wasn't funny. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this will ever get accepted as a proper policy... But good point, they are getting out of hand. Rcsprinter (chatter) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's only a start, and it requires work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Seriously, dudes, you're a bunch of buzzkills. Turn off Snotbot for the day and let us have our fun —PBP89 (Chat)(WP Edits: 999,999,999) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"You're a bunch of buzzkills." "Let us have our fun." Vandals commonly write such things. —David Levy 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Purplebackpack89 is not a vandal, however. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my point; the similarity is jarring precisely for this reason. —David Levy 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you stole my old signature that I got hammered on. :P—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it somewhat ironic that you call me a "buzzkill" when I was one of the ones who participated in the "fun" of today. Regardless of the "stupidity" or "hilarity" of all of the jokes and pranks that have gone on today, some of them are causing an uproar in the community. Something has to be done about that uproar; and a guideline (probably not a policy) outlining acceptable and unacceptable April Fools jokes and pranks will probably calm the uproar. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: See above, the purpose is to take unexpected pieces of the community and have a little fun with them. For example, I nominated the above mentioned sexual intercourse on what would have been reasonable grounds on most other nominations for the past few months. I tagged the AfD nomination with humor, so it was blatantly obvious what it was about, reverted the notification to the original author of the page, and let the reasoned keep/delete votes roll in. Now someone claims that their bot was blocked because (in part) of this when I see that the bot never edited the article, I have to question if the bot itself is faulty. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am tired of hearing whiny comments along the lines of "don't spoil our little bit of fun". This project is a serious reference work read by millions of people each and every day, not an entertainment venue. If readers open our article about, say, physics, they expect it to contain useful content rather than a big red box linking to a lame attempt at a joke. Remember that the kind of people who go around inserting penis images into articles are also only here to have what they think constitutes fun. Policy defines a name for people who "insert obvious nonsense into a page"; they're vandals, and people who intentionally make joke AfD nominations may need to be treated as such, no matter how funny they think they are.  Sandstein  21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of your argument bears no merit. You say, "This project is a serious reference work read by millions of people each and every day, not an entertainment venue. If readers open our article about, say, physics, they expect it to contain useful content rather than a big red box linking to a lame attempt at a joke." In that vein, Google is a serious tool that is the what, number one site visited on the Internet? Meanwhile, they periodically do little doodles changing around how their logo looks for a day. Every year, they do something tasteful for April Fool's Day. This year, they took Google Maps and added a "Quest" feature, making the entire world look like a Dragon Warrior map. It's an optional click right there on the map types. Do we see them any less seriously than before? No, this is how they have a little fun to prank us for April Fool's Day. So if someone creates a tasteful joke on Wikipedia, what is the difference between that and what happens on Google? I marked my page historical and jokingly suggested that Irony is the same as Coincidence (obviously they are regarded as different things). And now you are saying, "Oh look, this guy is a vandal and a detriment to the project." Maybe before you go around making such baseless accusations, you should look at the contribution history of users that you are about to tag as "idiots". Some of these users may have contributed more to the encyclopedia than you yourself have. And I'm not trying to boast about myself when I say that; at this time, I can't be as active as I would like to be. But the statement still stands regarding some of our valued contributors who just want to joke around on the one day of the year that people are encouraged to joke around. Ever watch The Price is Right on April Fool's Day? Last year, they destroyed the set as a joke. People still came back the next day and watched the next episode. Have a laugh once in a while, you might actually live longer! CycloneGU (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting my message from above:

The comparison invariably arises, with editors citing Google's April Fools' Day jokes as justification for April foolery at Wikipedia. The key difference is that when Google creates an April Fools' Day joke, it doesn't spawn dozens more throughout the site, added arbitrarily by random visitors. But that's exactly what happens here. If we permit a type of joke, it's extremely difficult to limit the extent to which it's committed. The combination of April Fools' Day's "join in the fun" tone and a wiki's "anyone can edit" nature ensure this. Without clear boundaries, we descend into chaos.

A handful of jokes, created in a manner that doesn't affect the encyclopedia proper, is mostly harmless. Unfortunately, that isn't what we've had today. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will make a quick add to this - my purpose for coming to Wikipedia is often for entertainment purposes. I see a song I like, I come here looking for information on the album; I see a movie trailer I like, I look it up here. That isn't a serious school project type of thing (speaking of, Wikipedia was not a permitted source when I was in school); I use it as an entertainment venue myself. CycloneGU (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An article about an entertainment-related subject is still a serious part of the encyclopedia. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Wrong place for this discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's only one day out of an entire year and the ones who know better know where to place their jokes. RfA's are definitely not one of those places everyday readers go to for information.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it...this wasn't just silly RFA's. It was idiotic AFDing of key articles, major BLP violations ... all in the name of "fun". It's not "fun", it's disruption. I was inches from blocking Jesper earlier because of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I did think of that when SPAs were made for this, though I didn't realize that they were SPAs until the last moment. It'll be over in 81 more minutes. However, I do agree that going to the degree of BLP violations was definitely not OK; my idea is that you stay out of the mainspace, period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I do get it Bwilkins which is why I kept my jokes out of article space. I am perfectly willing to support 24 hour blocks for any joke or prank that disrupts article space but nothing more.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose When its April fools let people have their fun, placing articles up for AfD on April fool's day is just going to lead to them being closed anyways, in the end there is no harm done as long as a joke template is used in the AfD or edit summary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When the "fun" spreads to the article namespace, harm is done. —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Here's best reason why. Let people have their fun. Relax, it will all be over tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That may work for the time being, but what about next year? Unless something's done, I don't doubt that this will happen again. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps better planning for such an event, like saying what SPIs, AfDs, etc. are going to be filed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I can't believe you just did that to me (the video link)! CycloneGU (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation: "Let people vandalise the encyclopedia. Relax, it will all be over tomorrow." —David Levy 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem really is that bots messed up the joke AfDs. Some people used twinkle to start joke AfDs (see Ritzman), then immediately went back to the article and removed the "big red box" which Wilkins so loathes. But the bots put it back, not realizing it was a joke and didn't belong. So turn off the bots for April 1; turn them back on on April 2. pbp 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• An Idea How about this, no pranks on living people with articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• If it gets to the point where I get blocked two hours after my latest attempt at an April Fools' edit — during a time when I was sleeping and not editing at all — then clearly something has gone too far. Just sayin'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Gotta agree with Hammy on that pbp 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Every year, someone nominates Earth or Human for deletion so this year I decided to something I thought was original. I looked for a notable subject that was invented in a "school" so I could nominate it with the rationale "wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". I eventually settled on rugby and I was careful not to touch anything in article space. (but snotbot did, I think that this was the first year that we had a bot adding/re-adding AFD tags to articles) The AFD in question was deleted as "vandalism" which I did not find funny. If I had known how out of hand it was going to get this year I might have thought twice before making my joke nom. The joke RFAs got so out of hand that I was half expecting someone to nominate their penis for adminship. One idea for joke AFDs next year, assuming that they are allowed, is to prefix the AFD page name with the date ie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AF2013Earth but use just plain Earth when filling out the afd2 template. It will look normal when transcluded on the log but snotbot won't auto-tag Earth with the AFD tag. Also, joke AFDs on living people should be prohibited. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• That would work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, joke AFDs on living people just crosses the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke AfDs on living people is overkill. Actual AfDs on non-notable people is regular business. I saw the Rugby Football AfD; it seemed harmless like others. Like Ron, I tried to pick something tasteful, but I always thought the policy was to make it look like part of the business even as a joke. I'd never seen any policy saying otherwise, and I'd like the annual joking to continue, so we need a policy in place for next year. Perhaps as a rule every page in the April Fool's Day 2013 set should have the directory name include that, then a regularly-named name like otherwise? I do not think a bot would try to auto-tag articles inside that directory. Changing the name as Ron suggests fails as the title would be "AF2013Earth", not "Articles for Deletion: Earth (nth nomination)". I will say this, however, and you can agree or disagree all you want: the bot ruined APD2012. Now time to remove the historical box from my userpage. CycloneGU (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And I just un-diva-retired. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sexual Intercourse. Plz. Night Ranger (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support I've thought April Fool's Date was rather stupid for a long time and, often, it goes into the realm of being disruptive. Several sites I frequent decided that for April Fool's, they're going to make everything be upside down. Well, great thanks, now I can't read the site, that's so helpful. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Celebrate April Fool's day in your off-line life or somewhere else on the internet that isn't trying to actually be professional. Silverseren^C 01:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Although I participated in some of the joke AfDs, I agree most of them lacked quality humor. So the proposal below seems to be good. Each year, only one article could be nominated for deletion, but should be high quality humor clearly distinguishable from petty disruption. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Editors should be able to have fun once a year. However, some pranks are disruptive. I seek to strike a balance between those two aspects. I propose the following:

1. There should be one April Fool's prank in article space. This should not involve a living person or an article about a living person. It should be clever, well-designed and funny, like Google's pranks. It should not be immediately obvious as a joke, but neither should it be so plausible that it lasts until after April 1 is over.
2. Other pranks are OK so long as they stay within the community namespaces (project, user, and talk namespaces), do not affect article space and do not involve living people or articles about living people. For example, joke AfDs would be fine, as long as the joke-nominated articles weren't about living people and didn't have deletion templates on them.
3. Ruining of (legitimate) jokes by exposing them can result in a block after a warning (but only until April 1 is over, as blocks are not supposed to be punitive).
4. The best April Fool's pranks should be commemorated in an April Fool's Hall of Fame, the worst in an April Fool's Hall of Infamy.
5. Editors should try to come up with original pranks, rather than repeating the same ones year after year.
6. Standard vandalism remedies will be applied to violators of item 1 or the BLP clause of item 2.

Your thoughts? ChromaNebula (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My response:

1. I agree with just one prank in article space but who is going to be the judge or judges on what is clever and well designed? The jokes yes must be made obvious.

2. Agreed with.

3. I dont think this should be the case, rather a person who takes a joke too far should just have one warning then a block. IPs should not make jokes it should only be for people with established accounts here on wikipedia, not to be elite or anything its just those people should know the rules on what is allowed or what is not.

4. We already have that somewhat: Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2012

5. This should be a guideline not a rule.

6. See #3

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh. It's over now and back to being serious.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The admin do have a point while its only one day there is always next year, the fact that people would make a joke about a living person and go too far on it to me just says that something needs to be done. IM not saying no more pranks but there has to be something in place so something like that doesnt happen again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Support blocking any involved user for 24 hours for executing any prank or joke the alters, changes, misleads, or is any form of disruption to articlespace only.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Main Page (on which we feature numerous pranks of the "strange but true" variety) is in the article namespace. Apart from that, no, absolutely not. Wikipedia has enough credibility issues without permitting fake articles. (And as discussed above, because anyone can edit a wiki, if we condone the existence of one, we'll end up with many more.)

I'm okay with #2, provided that article talk pages are off-limits.

The idea of blocking editors for "exposing" jokes is ludicrous.

The rest seems fine, provided that it's worded in the context of what April foolery is tolerated (not encouraged). —David Levy 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yawn. Really, we go through this every year. It's always the same arguments, and largely the same editors. There's always a hell of a lot of discussion, and no results whatsoever. April fools' day is over. The credibility of Wikipedia hasn't been compromised, the project hasn't collapsed into chaos, and, amazingly, the world hasn't ended. For the love of God, let's move on with our lives. Swarm ^X 03:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I like the tone of this approach. Swarm is right but then again this does come up every year. A guideline and a single organized joke might take away a lot of the desire for editors to roll their own. While funny by committee is not funny, it's possible to make this work. And it goes without saying that a single editor should know better than to make multiple similarly uncreative jokes on the same April fools day. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Very good proposal. We need high quality culture for celebrating April Fools. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Next year, change the main page from saying "anyone can edit" to "no one can edit, ever," full protect the whole project, and get back to work April 2. Nobody Ent 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Create an adminbot/cratbot that desysops and blocks everyone on Wikipedia, hard blocks all IPs and fully protects all articles. Then forget all about Wikipedia. Night Ranger (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(half-serious) Proposal 5

Back up the database on March 31, then restore the backup on April 2. Show a banner at the top of every page stating that any edits on April 1 will be overwritten the next day. Yes, this might be inviting abuse on April 1, but consider it as food for thought. Kcowolf (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

This is my only response to this thread. — Andrew Garrett • talk 10:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure of RfC at Talk:Libyan civil war#Counterproposal RfC: Move moratorium

Two weeks ago, I initiated an RfC at Talk:Libyan civil war to propose a 6-month moratorium on all requested moves at the page. The proposed allotted discussion time was two weeks, so as to have the closure conveniently line up with the new month. During that time, unanimous consensus was established for the moratorium. Now that two weeks have come and gone, I ask that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion, if the consensus gained is deemed sufficient. Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

AIV backlog

WP:AIV has a backlog. Not an April Fools' joke.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Already cleared. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1rR at Pro-life feminism

{{archive top|1=Nothing to discuss here, move along... --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)}}Struck close pending request for clarification.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A notice for a 1RR restriction has been placed at [121] by User:Binksternet after he issued a strong warning to me that the article was under 1RR. He stated on the talk page that it is abortion-related, and that any editor could establish the 1RR restriction.

Curiously enough, Binksternet was blocked in the recent past for a full week for violating an 1RR restriction placed on him [122], then also given a 0RR restriction on an article, etc. Making his stern insistence on 1RR enforcement tres amusant. The enabling page does not appear to indicate that Pro-life feminism is one of the articles included, nor has it ever been included in the past. The ArbCom page states that admins may act, but I do not think Binksternet is an admin, and if he were, his acts as an involved editor would bar him from acting. What I find most amusing is that this non-admin is the one who is most active in injecting "abortion" into the article, in which it ought to play a very minor role indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet's block doesn't change the fact that the entire abortion topic area is under 1RR - rather, it provides evidence of that fact. As I've already explained to you, the article is semiprotected for three years as a result of the ArbCom case, proof of which can easily be found on the case page, so there's absolutely no use pretending that the article isn't covered by that case. You're also not making yourself look very good by falsely attributing to Binksternet the claim that any user can establish a 1RR restriction, after Binksternet and I were kind enough to warn you that it was a sanction reaffirmed by the Arbitration Committee after being imposed by the community, and after you were subsequently warned by an administrator. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

The admin stated that anyone at all can place the warning notice on any page - which I find outre. And the "warning" was that the admin felt that the notice sould be so placed. Cheers - but notes here which are inaccurate and placed by an involved editor ought reasonably be responded to. Binksternet stated Any editor, even Collect, is able to add the 1RR notice at the top of this page which is contrary to how I understand the process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, on reading the community sanctions and the Arb case, I'm not sure the 1RR is still in effect. I'll check on this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the case leads me to think that it is in effect indefinitely. The sanctions would be lifted only by later decision. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

NYyankees51 checked with Jclemens some little while after the case because he and I also weren't sure if it still applied, and he confirmed that it is: "unless we explicitly say we're taking away a community remedy, assume that we're not". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

page with cleanup needed

The Annelid page has several places where a boilerplate "example image" has been randomly placed. It clearly doesn't belong there and I'm not sure how to remove them.--66.7.139.222 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The page should be OK now after this fix. You may have to bypass your browser cache to see the latest version - Ctrl-F5 in many browsers. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)