Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive246

Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag

What should be done with this category? No templates appear to be populating it anymore, so it would qualify for deletion under CSD G8. But DumbBOT keeps creating daily categories for this and the bot operator appears to be inactive (last edit October 2011)...— Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's supposed to be populated with images that have been tagged with {{nld}}. No clue why that's not happening. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

About a year ago, changes to the upload script made it very difficult to upload files here without specifying an acceptable license. As a result, I assume that essentially all files have a license on them (though the fraction with erroneous licenses might have increased). Once the backlog of unlicensed files was cleaned out, it is possible that there are essentially no unlicensed files left on Wikipedia. Of course, it is also possible that the bots or other tools looking for unlicensed files have simply stopped tagging them for some reason. So, my guess would be that the categories are empty because no files are being tagged {{nld}} any more. I tried it out and it looks like the tag still adds the category, so I'm assuming it just isn't being used anymore. Dragons flight (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because I just added it. When I left the previous comment, the template wasn't adding the category. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Although why exactly do we want two deletable image categories, one of which is a subset of the other? Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) already commented out the categories on the category itself. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it exists, so it should be doing something. I've never particularly understood why we have both it and Category:Wikipedia files with missing copyright information, but the way the bot's going we can't get rid of it, so we might as well have it do something. It should definitely be G8-deleted once we can get the bot to stop creating subcategories. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with the details of bot policy, but allowing bots to run while their owners are (globally) inactive for more than a year doesn't sound like such a good idea. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See the "DumbBOT replacement" section of WP:BOTR. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree the Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag (populated by {{untagged}}) and the Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status (populated by {{no copyright information}} should be merged, as should be the templates themselves. (Why not simply redirect the one template to the other?) By the way, what we really ought to be doing is change WP:CSD to remove the 7-day waiting period for images that are uploaded with no source or copyright info at all. It is true that the number of such images, especially those with completely blank description pages, has dropped a lot since the introduction of the upload script a year ago, but a few such images still come through. In my experience, the number of potentially rescuable ones among them is absolutely negligible. If somebody goes out of their way to choose the old upload form to be able to upload an image without a tag, it always, always means it's a copyright violation. There's really no need to have all the bureaucratic costs of maintaining a waiting queue for these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not practical to merge them when we have a bot still creating all of them, but once we get it stopped, I would strongly support merger. Someone over at WP:BOTR has suggested adding these categories to the blacklist, so I've done it. This is the first time I've ever edited a regex page, so someone PLEASE check my edit as soon as possible! I'm guessing that # characters mark comments, so I've added it before what I want to be effective code; if I did it right, please remove the # character. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the bot will still try to create the pages and won't be able to due to blacklisting. This is, IMO, likely to break the rest of the tasks, and in any case, creates unnecessary server load. I would strongly recommend either finding a way to alter the bot's tasks (contacting the owner, modifying the code, etc.) or making another bot which'll be able to take over the other tasks. This is one of the reasons I strongly prefer bots that use checkpages in their userspace that can be used to disable specific tasks. Blocking the bot would stop other essential tasks from happening. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Was there a change in our child protection policy?

I don't have a recent example to link this to, it's just been something I've been wondering generally. In the past, it appeared that if young people posted their ages, they would be informed of the problems that could occur from posting their age and asked if they want it removed. Now we appear to be using a remove first and possibly ask questions later policy. Is this just a change in behavior or was policy changed sometime in the last year or so? Ryan Vesey 13:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy has the relevant statements; practice dictates that the response is left up to the discretion of the respondant. Children are advised of the policy and asked to remove mentions of their age and personal details; revision deletion and oversight may be used to enforce such requests as the situation calls for. I don't know that this has changed in policy or practice in many years. --Jayron32 14:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What Ryan may have encountered is "discretion" being rather wide-ranging. So for example, if someone claims to be twelve years old and posts their full name, date of birth and school name, it's not at all surprising for an oversighter to come along and zap all three pieces of information immediately. What is rather more surprising is if someone claims to be fifteen years old and posts their age in full years only, and that gets zapped without discussion. The use of discretion is not a huge problem, but it does cause confusion and/or annoyance sometimes. (The sillier side of me foresees a future in which 11-year-old admins go around using revdel against personal information on the userpages of 20-year-old editors, strictly for their own safety.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As Demiurge says, it's less a matter of "the rules say we must nuke everything from orbit!" and more a matter of "Arbcom/oversight/admin discretion often tends to protect minors more aggressively than it may have in the past." At any rate, AN doesn't seem like the right venue to start an in-depth discussion of where the lines should be drawn, if that's what we need to do. Though I'm also not sure what would be the right venue, especially considering the potential BEANSiness of the issue - perhaps Wikipedia talk:Child protection or Wikipedia talk:Oversight? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you talking about WP:CHILDPROTECT then the change that I have noticed is that ArbCom is no longer enforcing the policy. I have yet to receive any response or action on my last report to them. An earlier case which I detailed in an offsite blog post was reported to ArbCom but the user was blocked not by ArbCom and only after an admin noticed my follow-up blog post talking about ArbCom's lack of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• On ArbCom's enforcement of the child protection policy, our position remains that the policy will be enforced without question in all credible cases. If we do not respond to an e-mail, it's likely we have forgotten to action the thread, and a reminder should be sent to us. If we do not receive a report at all (for instance, if the case is reported in an off-site blog post instead), then we cannot possibly action it because we have no official channels of contact other than our mailing list. On whether oversighters have been more rigorously removing self-references by apparent minors, I suppose we have, though I consider that—as has already been argued above—a natural development of previous convention and not contrary to the child protection policy. I have access to the oversight tool, and for my own part (I can't speak for the other oversighters) I will always remove personal information published by apparent minors—and tell them about it afterwards. The possibility that the information could be used by a predator is, to me, too much of a risk to justify doing anything else in the cases I come across. AGK [•] 16:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a recent incident on a talk page where an editor complained he didn't get a reply from Arbcom, though in that instance he wanted to know about some Arb action that he wasn't involved with, so I thought a lack of response was understandable in that context as an extension of WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

AGK, do you think that "If we do not respond to an e-mail, it's likely we have forgotten to action the thread" is an acceptable excuse for ignoring reports of pro-pedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia? Is that an indication of how seriously you take such reports? In my case, I sent a reminder message to ArbCom just in case my first message had gone astray. No response to either message. Although I am limited in what I can say here, the case to which I refer concerns an editor that I have previously reported to ArbCom. My blog post is a reiteration of what I reported to ArbCom at the time with the addition of other evidence. I sent you enough information to know which user was involved and sent you a link to the blog post. I have no doubt that the post has been read by at least one member of ArbCom. With your permission I will post the link here, if you think it will help. Perhaps someone can cut-and-paste it into an email so that you won't have to click on a link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We didn't ignore the report; the Committee did not see any reason to take further action. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify which report you "didn't ignore" - was it the first one (who was indef blocked under the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy by an admin not in ArbCom), or the second one (who remains unblocked)? How is one to know whether you have declined to action a report, are ignoring a report, or, as AGK suggests, have simply "forgotten to action" it if you do not respond to such reports. I know you much get a lot of email, but I like to think that my record of productive collaboration with ArbCom should entitle me to at least a reply telling me that you're not doing anything. Why do you think I started posting these reports on Wikipediocracy's blog? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Those weren't rhetorical questions - who's next up on the ArbCom wheel of hit-and-run communications? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is actually interested in this topic, discussion is now split between here and the ArbCom talk page (although I would prefer that Arbs answer here, where more editors may see it). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • The situation as I read it is that ARBCOM found that the community was undecided, and that continued work was needed on the policy, but it seems that work did not continue: the community dropped the ball -- for six years. This is not a situation that should be permitted to continue indefinitely. The real question is how to move forward to a clear policy that is effective, usable, and supported by both the community and the Foundation. Is this a matter for discussion at VPP or should it go to the calmer space at Meta? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As an oversighter, I usually remove personal information posted by minors. Usually the information is wholly inappropriate; however, if someone who is technically a minor, but seems reasonably mature posts general information such as I'm a student in high school and live in Newport, R.I. and am interested in nautical history, I might decline. If the minor is posting silly stuff, such as their phone number, or whether they are looking for a boy friend, oversight is done. Which is to say, the nature of what is posted gives lots of information about the maturity of the minor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, you're using your brains and judgement? Isn't that grounds for de-sysopping around here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that I hold a grudge, but you once declined my request to OS some (RevDeled) edits where I'd revealed my IP address. Then again, I'd be pissed if someone removed my age from my userpage, so I guess you can't have everything. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question, but...

Why does Wikipedia:Child protection encourage us to report potential child endangerment to ArbCom rather than to the WMF? 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that the WMF wants to wash their hands of it so there is no legal trouble. If they take full responsibility of potential child endangerment, they become liable for any mistakes they make/actions they don't take. That's just a guess though. Ryan Vesey 18:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a stupid question at all. NuclearWarfare, one of the newest Arbs, recently opined "The child abuse and other private stuff I think we should entirely not be handling at all; that should be the WMF's domain". The WMF have already acted in this capacity - they globally banned a user when it looked like the Commons community was unwilling or unable to do so. Personally, I don't care who does it so long as someone does it. I am deeply unsatisfied with ArbCom's performance in this area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

With only two people available WMF is prepared to enforce decisions the Arbitration Committee has made but is not able to fully investigate allegations regarding troublesome edits or editors. It is possible the volunteer Arbitration Committee is also not able to fully discharge this responsibility, particularly if its members were elected on the understanding that engaging in such heroic and risky efforts is not within the remit of the Committee. However, in extreme cases action needs to be taken; luckily extreme cases are usually obvious. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

While I think it's probably a good approach to leave the deletion of unwisely-posted personal information to the volunteer staff, I don't think volunteers should be asked to deal with predators, stalkers or other nutjobs. That should be left to paid professionals who are accountable, understand how to work with law enforcement, and above all compensated for doing what is after all a rather unpleasant job. It's not as if the WMF can't afford to staff a department for that purpose. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with you on that, SB Johnny, the reality is that for the moment we're stuck - WMF doesn't have the staff to do it, and for whatever reasons of budgeting and prioritization, they're not willing and/or able to hire the staff to do it. Which leaves...well, arbcom and the functionaries, pretty much, with the backup of random community members as far as reporting issues. It ain't fun for anyone, but it's what we've got to work with for now unless/until the WMF magically hires professionals to do the work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What's even more concerning is that the English Wikipedia is the only site making efforts to protect children; none of the other WMF sites are covered by this, at least to my knowledge. --Rschen7754 20:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite right. It is difficult to get anyone to make clear statements about this issue, but WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner said "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false" in response to a Fox News story entitled "Pedophiles Find a Home on Wikipedia". Commons has a proposed policy but in my opinion it is unlikely that it will ever become more than proposed until there is a major shift in the Commons community. There is also a proposed policy on Meta, which would cover all WMF projects. This will never move beyond proposal stage because, as I have been told in so many words, there is no procedure agreed for moving something from proposal to policy. Sue Gardner's statements would suggest that such a policy is already in place, albeit in an undocumented and haphazardly upheld way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically I am relating to the posting of too much information by minors, which only the English Wikipedia has policies regarding (as I have been told by a steward). --Rschen7754 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood which policy you were referencing. I agree that all projects should be mindful of children posting inappropriate information about themselves and it would be nice to see the WMF act to rectify this situation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WMF seems to have the concept that English Wikipedia capable of managing itself. NE Ent 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As an oversighter I can tell you that we remove material under the heading "self-disclosure by an apparent minor" on a daily basis. I don't have any statstics but in my experience it is one of the most common suppression actions. Kids who are brought up using Facebook don't seem to get that there are built-in protections for minors on Facebook that are not present here, and that it is a really, really bad idea to post your age, name, what school you go to, etc. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Meta to actually do something either, quite the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disclosed my age when I was 17, and that never got deleted. Then again, it was just my age, I've never included my date of birth, or anything else about me, other than that I live in England. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism block

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.

---

}

Could someone please add a schoolblock template to User Talk:204.109.64.203? For some reason the virtual keyboard on my tablet has decided to not let me type curly brackets. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Back on a proper keyboard now :) Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend purchasing a wireless keyboard if you plan to edit WP from a tablet. It will save you hundreds of additional keystrokes with that virtual keyboard, and you can always turn it off if you don't want to carry it with you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't you copy/paste them from another page? Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of an anecdotal life story -- a few months ago, a couple of keys on my keyboard broke when I dropped it. I have no immediate replacement. So I had to keep the letters associate with the broken keys in an open notepad window and copy/paste them whenever needed instead of typing them. It was absolute torture! :) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:55, 1 March 2013 (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.

Forgot password, didn't register email address in preferences

Is there any way to reset password if I provide an email address?

Thanks, Regushee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.191.6 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're screwed and will have to start over with a new account. There is basically no way to confirm you are the owner of the account at this point. I'd go ahead and provide an email address when registering this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's technically doable, yes, but from what I've heard the sysadmins are reluctant to change passwords, and you need ironclad evidence that you're the same person who originally controlled the account. The simpler option is to request that a bureaucrat usurp your account and give you the name back... but that would still require some sort of proof. Did you ever:

• Disclose your real-world identity?
• Acknowledge an IP address you'd used?
• Link your account to a profile on another website?
• Meet a fellow (highly trusted) Wikipedian in person?

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as a precaution, I left this message. A similar case can be seen at User talk:AGK/Archive/76#Checkuser me?. Ryan Vesey 07:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As the others have said, it's most likely that you will have to make a new account. In the future, I would recommend that you establish a committed identity. This may allow you to regain access should you lose your password. Mike V • Talk 19:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing I would have to start a new account too (I'm DrWho42), since I haven't received any of the password reset e-mails?--2602:306:CD49:C570:69F9:9896:7701:EE3A (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should register new accounts, in my opinion, and use the same computer as you'd used in your old accounts. That done, you should request checkuser to confirm that the accounts are the same; if you get a kindly checkuser, you'll be able to have the connection confirmed. If that can be done, I doubt you'll have difficulty with getting a bureaucrat to do the usurp process. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the help!--2602:306:CD49:C570:69F9:9896:7701:EE3A (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There's many kind checkusers, but I doubt any of them would use the tools for this purpose, at least not on this Wiki. It might be worth finding a checkuser from another project at meta:CheckUser policy to see if they'd do it. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone willing to follow WP:NOTLAW will, since our privacy policy is made to restrict the release of data about people who don't want it to be released; anyone who hides behind the letter of the law in order to refuse such a thoroughly harmless yet helpful request is letting a rule prevent him from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. After all, if the checkuser can't say "I'm sure that they're the same person", either "I'm sure that they're not the same person" or "I can't be sure if they're the same person or not" will be the correct response; nothing more needs to be said. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found it to be a letter of the law type of thing. It's more of a fact that en.wikipedia checkusers have decided that they're unwilling to do self-requested checks. But you may be right that someone might ignore this and do the check. Ryan Vesey 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nea Salamis Famagusta FC

Hello. Can you move Nea Salamis Famagusta FC to Nea Salamis Famagusta; The article is about the club in general, not only about the football club. It has a volleyball club too. I want to create an article only for the football club under the name Nea Salamis Famagusta FC. Xaris333 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article has to be moved, but an admin has to delete the Nea Salamis Famagusta page, which is now used as a redirect first, before we can move the article there. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to move another article later. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Page moved. As Zaminamina said, this kind of request is better filed at WP:RM. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thxs! Xaris333 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

pervasive technical error in deletion procedure

A deletion of the user page User:My76Strat/NNU/Article as user request, has caused a great number of article talk pages to be listed at CAT:CSD. (e.g. Talk:Chen Zhongshi; Is there a quick fix, or do we have to remove the link manually from the talk pages? DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I thought of a way to avoid the problem. I re-created that userpage as a blank template (with only a comment on it in <!-- ... --> format. That got the article talk pages off CAT:CSD. We should still remove the template from the user talk pages using Special:WhatLinksHere/User:My76Strat/NNU/Article to find which ones they are, and similarly for Special:WhatLinksHere/User:My76Strat/NNU/Welcome. I don't have a quick fix per se, but at least we don't need to worry about these talk and user talk pages being speedily deleted by mistake. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Surely once the transcluded page is deleted, the pages that transclude it should drop out of the CSD category anyway, shouldn't they? The presence of a redlink shouldn't make pages appear in the CSD list - maybe it just needed time for the category to be updated/refreshed/whatever? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• What was a user space page doing being templated into article talk in the first place??? NE Ent 12:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a job queue thing. Just like any other page being transcluded somewhere else, the tagging of the userspace page for deletion (without a noinclude tag) meant that everything else would be tagged until the job queue caught up. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Somebody should delete the unnecessary fake that Metropolitan90 made -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

All the transclusions have been removed, and so have User:My76Strat/NNU/Article and User:My76Strat/NNU/Welcome. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Need a second opinion on a deletion

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 just deleted Li Tianyi as an attack page (CSD#G10), based on the clearly negative tone of some of the material. But then I went back to review the page, and see that it's slightly possible that there is a neutral version underneath. However, I'm very hesitant to undelete it, because I think that it would almost certainly be redeleted at AfD per WP:BLPCRIME—what is alleged to have done is pretty bad, but doesn't rise to the level of notability we require of criminals (plus, he's not yet been convicted, I think, so we can't even call him a criminal). An additional complicating factor is that all of the sources are in Chinese. Finally, the subject is a minor. If the article is likely to be deleted again at AfD, I don't think it's appropriate to undelete it for just that reason; there's no reason for potentially BLP violating material to appear even for a week in WP. But I don't want my judgment to just substitute for community consensus, so I'd like some admins to look at the deleted revisions and see if anyone thinks that there's any reason to undelete it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this article fails marginally under WP:BLP1E. I'm not able to see the article, but had a quick Google about the event. The subject is only notable for this event and being the son of a notable figure, but notability isn't inherited. The deleition should stand. Blackmane (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no way that the earliest version is neutral — see the intro sentence beginning with "His hobby is". It's also a blatant hoax, at least in part: he became an Internet celebrity in late 2013. Besides being a good G10 candidate, you could have gotten this as G3, and if you'd removed the attack portions, you could have gotten it under A7. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2013 (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 moved

Yeansu Lim, your request has been moved to Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Dear_webmaster. NE Ent 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Request: Indef block w/o talk page access for self spamming Indian businessman

Resolved

 – by User:Bwilkins

• Jaimin bal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jaimin bal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jaimin Bal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous AN thread

User is currently indef blocked for having repeatedly and obstinantly re-created their biography, being warned several times about Conflict of Interest, and showing no intent to discuss the validity of having such an article. User proceeded to restore their non-notable autobiography on their talk page, overwriting the indefinite block notice, CSD notifications, AfD notifications, orphaned non-free content notifications, etc. I restored the page to before their actions today, but I request a reblock without page access as it appears that the user does not want to read the issues and resolve the issues. I attempted to use WP:AIV to resolve this, but the friendly helper-bot truncated the message because the user was alleady indef-blocked. Hasteur (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Starship9000

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.

---

Starship9000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · global contribs · central auth)
Starship9000 is a newer editor who has been given a lot of rope already. He is a well intentioned editor; however, he lacks the maturity necessary to edit productively. Because of the difficulties he has, the time of several editors is needed to assist him and check his edits. He's had a number of copyright problems; however, these are, to the best of my knowledge, limited primarily to some other projects from which he's been blocked. He is unable to understand our policies as evidenced by his answers to the tests at User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Starship9000. In addition, as can be expected in editors lacking in maturity, he is focused on recognition over quality. Not his desire to promote SkyScreamer to GA status (seen on the talkpage) is not a desire to improve the article go GA status, but rather to nominate the article to GA status so he can receive the GA barnstar. Don't get me wrong, his intentions are good, and he does make improvements. I helped him move Flint Covered Bridge to the namespace, which isn't long, but is nice as far as short stubs go. The concern I have though, is that the amount of work required by others to keep up with him and continue assisting him outweighs the quality he is able to produce at present. I've linked to the two articles, and I'm sure some other editors involved will be able to pull up some actual diffs. Right now, I think he really needs a break so he can come back when he has matured a bit. He has made some edits at Simple, and it's not immediately evident whether he has the maturity to edit there yet, but it's certainly a better fit than here. On his talk page, I suggested that he take a volunteer one year break, which he has declined. With that in mind, I would like to propose a one year block for his account. I personally don't know that one year will be long enough, but that seems to be a good length of time prior to a reassessment once we see how he edits after that time. Ryan Vesey 05:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

About to head out, but check sulutil and luxo - it might be enlightening. --Rschen7754 05:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify a bit? I've not heard of sulutil and/or luxo (is it one phrase or two separate words). Ryan Vesey 05:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, global contribs, I'll get some links across the top. Ryan Vesey 05:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Although it might be unfair to support a block based on his behavior on other wikis, the current blocks on the English Wikinews and Commons, plus a woefully premature RfA on the Simple English Wikipedia, do not make me inspire confidence with him. Moreover, his userpages on the Simple English Wikipedia and the English Wikinews say he wants to become admin there - this makes me believe he is not as interested in contributing to those projects as he is interested in collecting status there. I do believe he has maturity issues, judging from his edits on this project; this was definitely unnecessary. I also see him dodging valid concerns at User talk:Starship9000/Archive (February - present)#You may not upload images, where he makes a completely tangential comment "I want you to tell Astros4477 or his friend Dom497 that all the Pokemon XD:Gale of Darkness files need to be deleted because they are all from bulbapedia and they are copyvio's. Then, Ryan Vesey to go tell a Wikimedia Commons administrator like Courcelles, Cirt, Edgar181, INeverCry, Leyo, etc. Go on his talk page, not his wikimedia commons talk page. In fact,...." where he does not appear to understand the issues being brought up. Therefore, even though I have not been following this user's edits closely, I would support a block.-Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• *sigh* I had really hoped it wouldn't come to this. I've been following Starship9000 (though not as who should say closely) since I deleted an article of his as a copyvio. The article in question, Ten question marks, about an obscure glitch in a Pokemon game, was copied without attribution from Bulbapedia, which has a license incompatible with ours (CC-BY-NC-SA). (Naturally, even if the license was compatible, the lack of attribution was a problem, and without either of those things, it's not even remotely a notable subject.) It's been my opinion that Starship is unfortunately just not old/mature enough to edit Wikipedia yet. I had hoped that he could be convinced to take a break on his own, or failing that, at least relegate himself to a mentorship (with Go Phightins) that would help ease him in, but it would seem that he has little desire to do either. All that said, I haven't been following him closely enough to tell how much active harm he's doing to warrant a block; I know he does a bunch of wacky things with SPIs and sockpuppets in general, and I guess he's started creating non-notable articles again, so it might be indicated. So, yeah, block I guess, but it kinda sucks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block until user is able to contribute effectively. Just reading through the talk page archives is enough to concern me. --Rschen7754 07:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• I understand the point of an indefinite block, I just feel like it is more difficult to deal with. It's very difficult for an editor to show that they have matured while they're still blocked. A one year block would allow him to start editing again to show this. If he still has problems, we add another block, if he doesn't we can be happy. Ryan Vesey 07:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That's why we have WP:OFFER. However, I doubt he will be ready within a year, and furthermore, there is the possibility that due to the crosswiki disruption he may have to be globally locked, which has no chance of appeal. --Rschen7754 07:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, Just wondering, assuming there are no objections, how long will it be from the posting of this request until it is actually carried out? Is there a standard time period for these sorts of things? ★★RetroLord★★ 07:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• There's not really a consistent time period for these. Some discussions last for a week, others for a couple of hours. The real answer is, the discussion will continue until an administrator determines that consensus has been reached. Personally, I'd prefer if these never lasted less than 24 hours to give the greatest possible chance that our editors from all over the world will get a chance to see it. Ryan Vesey 07:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support one year block. (Edit conflict x2). This is hard for me to write, since I see promise in this editor and I have no doubt that he could become a great editor if he dedicated himself to learning and following the rules. The reason I support a block is not his inexperience, but it is his pretending to follow the rules while continuing to ignore them. As an editor who has followed his progress for a while, I have repeatedly thought he was on the right track, only to be disappointed. He knows the rules just well enough to manipulate them, which means he poses a risk to all of the projects in which he participates. For example, he has abused image uploading, IP editing, AFD, and several other aspects of Wikipedia normally reserved for experienced editors. A warning he received on Wikinews before his ban says it well (dif). He has shown no honest desire to learn the rules of Wikipedia and he breaks his promises as soon as he makes them, most recently his promise not to engage in most types of editing until the completion of all of his adoption tests. I wish it hadn't come to this, but I believe a one year block is in order to give him a chance to think about what he has done and, honestly, to become a bit more mature. I echo Writ Keeper's sadness. Andrew³²⁷ 07:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support One Year Block over an indef block, for the reasons stated above. It will be very hard for Starship to prove maturity if he is blocked. The points raised about his behaviour on the wiki, and other wikis, is quite worrying and for those reasons I support the block. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Question. Is there a way to ban him from all projects for a year or would that require action from ArbCom/WMF? Andrew³²⁷ 07:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• ArbCom couldn't do it. See Meta:Steward requests/Global (or first Meta:Global blocks). I don't feel like that'sthe correct step right now. Each project can deal with the issue separately. I can only imagine a global block if he was to continue being long-term blocked from various projects and was to move to new ones each time. Ryan Vesey 07:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• This would be done by the stewards, and only after a serious amount of crosswiki abuse; it's rare but it has happened before. --Rschen7754 07:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block with something like Standard Offer - I think we need to see some sign of understanding and commitment to behave before unblocking, rather than the passage of an arbitrary amount of time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support block: Only commenting here as a blocking admin on English Wikinews where he also requested an unblock. His block was declined and visible at n:User talk:Starship9000 on the grounds he does not see how he can write without violating copyright and does not appear willing to accept some form of community sanction in order to work to regain full editing priveleges. I think global block premature but local indef block until he can fully articulate copyright policy, demonstrate editing on another project without copyvio problems, and accept community inplaced sanctions to watch. --LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support One Year Block (over an indef block per Ryan's reasoning). One of the big problems here (apart from his impulsiveness and social immaturity) is that his language skills are still very immature. I suspect it's one of the reasons why he finds the policy pages and adoption tutorials so difficult, and why he continues to have copyright issues. I just removed a section [1] from an article he created yesterday which had been copied from another website. The rest of his attempts are almost invariably unattributed copying from other Wikipedia articles (ditto at Simple). If you compare the language he uses when communicating on talk pages and in edit summaries where he has to write the text himself and the one that appears in articles, the difference is striking. If this is down to simply being too young and not having attended school long enough, it may right itself eventually, but it would take a least another year. If the language problems are due to other factors, well, that may be a bit more insoluable. Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support one year block for the reasons given elsewhere; Starship9000 is just too young/immature to understand policies, or people's guidance for that matter. He's also violated several conditions of the terms that allowed him to stay for this long (such as creating new articles). Lukeno94 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support one year block, indef would be unpedagogical. However, pretty please don't block this guy before giving him an opportunity to respond. Max Semenik (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• User blocked for one year for flagrant disregard of conditions for staying unblocked after previous block expired. User has been offered enough advice and chances (see also my talk page), and to continue this discussion here at ANI is a waste of everyone's time. We can teach people about policies and how to use editing tools, but helping youngsters to reach a level of maturity that their age isn't ready for is not within our remit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2013 (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.

Requests for permissions/Reviewer

Not quite sure if this is the right spot for this, so if it isn't please move it.

User:Jayakrishnan.ks100 has made a request then cancelled that request. Is there a procedure for this? Should it be removed from the page or should an admin come and tag it with  Not done and let it be archived? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 11:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't usually remove. Tag and it gets archived. Normally, you ask this on the talkpage for RFP :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for posting in the wrong spot, but thanks for the answer Bwilkins ★★RetroLord★★ 11:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of IP range

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked the IP range 101.0.71.0/24 because an IP editor active from that range had an IP-hopping connection. The log claims this was for "sock abuse", but there is no indication that the IP was a sock of anyone or that there was any misrepresentation on the IP's part. Instead the WP:SOCK argument appears to be based on the nature of the IP's connection. Future left several statements demanding the IP create an account or else be blocked: [2] [3] [4]. Future ultimately performed an anon-only block on the IP range when this didn't happen, initially for three months with account creation blocked. For no apparent reason, Future modified the block a half-hour later to make it a hard range block for six months. The IP was editing from a VPN server and this is what caused the IP-hopping. Given the IP's statements about editing from work it seems this was not done with any deliberate intent to evade, but rather because the company for which the editor works uses a VPN connection as do many other companies. Blocking account creation when the whole concern was about the IP-hopping range seems punitive in the extreme. The IP editor did use a proxy server after the block to inform me of the issue, but I don't think that should be held against them given the excessively punitive nature of Future's block. I ask that the range block be amended to anon-only with account creation allowed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The socking argument was obviously related to this ANI discussion about possible socks of Echigo mole where 101.0.71.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was attacking Mathsci and Dougweller. So, connections aside, I think there's a good likelihood that this IP is in fact related to Echigo mole. In this light I'm not sure that account creation from this very range would benefit the project, so a hard range block may be justified. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the IP hopper's account is operated by Echigo mole, since he edited a year ago from a regular IP range in Australia. On the other hand the IP hopper did restore a trolling edit of Echigo mole and acted on it as if it had been made by a good faith user, despite having been told otherwise by two editors. After FPaS, blocked the range 101.0.71.0/24,[5] the IP hopper used an open proxy in Brazil which was reported by me[6][7] at WP:OP and blocked for 6 months by Materialscientist.[8] Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple users have suggested that it would be helpful if the IP hopper registered an account. At the same time last year, they were editing in a different Australian IP range. Again suggestions to register an account were fobbed off. The excuse finally offered was the inability to think up a "decent name".[9] Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Adopting a bureaucratic procedure of taking a week to agonize over every "new" user editing from an IP-hopping proxy would not be helpful when facing long-term and very determined POV pushing. It is very hard for people unfamiliar with the WP:ARBR&I debacle to follow a case like this. Third parties should bear in mind these factors: a very dedicated group of determined people has been pushing a certain line about race and intelligence for years (and some are banned); in the past, Mathsci was the main obstacle preventing Wikipedia from being used to promote their view; several of the banned users have created socks to push their view or to provoke Mathsci in the hope of having him sanctioned; independently of the R&I case, there is a long term abuser (Echigo mole) with a grudge against Mathsci who frequently posts provocative messages hoping to recruit editors for their cause. The 101 IP is not Echigo mole. 101 is someone supporting the R&I line of the banned users, and who has been carefully following good practices to do what they can to support their view. However, they came unstuck when discussing Mathsci on ANI (archive). Taking the trouble to follow the interactions shows that 101 revealed their agenda by restoring and spreading Echigo mole's trolling (EM used 111.161.30.218), then focusing on Mathsci at ANI. If 101 were a good-faith editor, they would have responded to the ANI report by explaining why they restored 111.161.30.218's message, and taking advice on the matter. Instead, they pushed their line. Good block. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP was not a proxy server as you are implying, but an IP range belong to a VPN server that is apparently operated by the editor's place of employment. In addition, the IP indicated that he or she was not a new user at all, but has been editing for at least a year, noting this IP. As I noted above, Future's concerns focused only on the IP-hopping and he called for the IP editor to register an account to resolve those concerns. An anon-only block that allowed account creation would allow for that concern to be addressed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That interpretation is very unlikely to be correct. Yet another IP (92.4.162.209) posted some info at Talk:R&I. The Internet has an industry that provides proxy servers that people can use to hide their IP and their geographic location. Services provided include the ability to change IP whenever wanted (with the ability to appear to be from one country in one post, and from an entirely different country in another edit made a minute later). If wanted ask at my talk for an explanation of what 92 said, but I checked their evidence and it is correct, namely that PureVPN is a business providing proxy services (under $10/month), and the PureVPN Australian server is at 101.0.71.2, and that makes it very likely that all the 101.0.71.* IPs are used by PureVPN (the coincidence of that fact combined with an IP-hopping editor in an area known to be inhabitated by determined socks is striking). The 101 user may claim that their 101.0.71.* IPs are from a VPN server operated by their employer, but that claim is very likely to be false (unless they work for PureVPN). Apart from the PureVPN coincidence, legitimate VPN servers do not change IP (and they certainly do not do so frequently). It is obvious that the 101 user is not new, and it is obvious they want to settle grudges concerning the editor I named, and it is obvious that they were settling in for a protracted battle with demands that there be proof that the EM trolling was made by a banned user (the EM comments came from an IP with a total of two edits, both being "helpful" comments at User talk:BlackHades, intended to continue their fight). Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention it, I do wonder if we should even operate under the presumption that the UK IP was right about there being a VPN involved. Were it not for that comment, along with rampant sock paranoia, none of us would be talking about VPN and it is quite possible that it is just a coincidence. The 110.32 range that was active until at least July of last year geolocates to the same metropolitan area and the editorial activity does seem similar to the 101.0.71 range, with the same IP-hopping (see the revision history of the Guns, Germs, and Steel article around February 2012). I don't think there is any basis for suspecting that the IP editor is lying about this being their prior IP range and it seems to support this being the same editor. The IP-hopping is unusual, but looking at the GGaS revision history, in one instance only an hour elapse before IPs changed. As these all geolocate to the same area it seems unusual to see anything nefarious in that. It actually does seem suggestive of some connection that constantly changes the IP address.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world perhaps we would have time to accommodate people with a plethora of problems: IP 101 does not want to create an account; their IP changes frequently; they happen to be using IPs that are known to be in a range also used by PureVPN; PureVPN is in the business of providing cheap proxy services intended so users can avoid scrutiny; the 101 user happens to favor views shared by several banned users; they are perfectly civil but cannot pass up an opportunity to settle a few scores with a well known editor who happens to be the bete noire of the banned users; they demand proof to justify the removal of a troll post by a banned user using a throwaway IP. What benefit would arise from spending a couple more days agonizing over whether those factors are sufficient to justify a block? Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people "happen to favor views shared by several banned users", but that in itself means nothing. The prior activity from 110.32 range strongly suggests the geolocation is legitimate as PureVPN didn't have a server for nearly the entire time that range was active. None of the banned users edit from Australia as far as I know.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:The Devil's Advocate this block, and the discussions related to it don't seem to add up. I'm curious as to what ultimately was the justification for this 6 month block. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Whoever the IP hopper is, the open proxy 201.76.185.214 in Brazil that they used has now been used for a second time to post an unblock request.[10] That request, however, is in the style of Mikemikev's edit summaries here (now reverted with edit summaries rev-delled) and is unlikely to have any success. Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed talk page access has now been revoked and the talk page deleted. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would exercise some caution here of who's who. The person who made that unblock request is Grawp. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not the first time he's muddied the waters like that. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of the 110.32 IPs and 101.0.71 IPs (the latter being the IPs subject to the range block) generally sorted by time of use in chronological order:

• 110.32.141.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.146.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.158.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.128.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.128.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.132.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.192.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.150.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.203.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.128.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.147.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.195.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.155.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.129.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.146.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 110.32.155.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.0.71.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looking at them all seems to make it more likely that this IP was not using some service to evade scrutiny, but just that the editor's connection constantly changes IP addresses. The IP editor has been consistently straightforward about their connection with the other IPs so it makes it even less likely. As far as I know, none of the persistent sockmasters in the topic area edit from Australia so that does not seem to be a likely issue either.

I see no reason to presume that a hard block of the 101.0.71 IP range was in any way necessary or justifiable. Should the issue only be, as Future suggested in his statement to the IP, that the IP-hopping made it preferable for the editor to have a registered account, then the six-month hard block is not an appropriate action. Allowing account creation seems more appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Chronological information on the IP hopper's cumulative edits is easily available using toolserver because of the narrowness of the IP range used. The link has been displayed multiple times here and on WP:ANI. Here it is again: [11] As Future Perfect at Sunrise has written on his user talk page, after one week this meritless request has found no traction with any administrators. The reasons for unblocking appear to be more related to the continuation of various disputes in project space.[12][13] Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• What is known is that PureVPN provides a cheap service intended to assist its users avoid scrutiny, and that PureVPN uses at least one IP in the range listed above. There is no reason to think that anyone using PureVPN IPs has ever seen Australia—the whole point of a service like that is to hide the user's location. I have never heard of someone having an Internet connection with an IP that changes in a matter of hours (once or twice, yes; frequently, no). Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• They probably are editing from Australia. There is a history of tendentious editing around WP:ARBR&I by anonymous IPs from Australia, e.g. the IP 220.233.29.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Timotheus Canens not so long ago. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Any reason why we shouldn't treat PureVPN the same way we do open proxies? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• PureVPN didn't have a server in Australia for nearly the entire time that the 110.32 range was active and that seems to be the same individual. It seems very unlikely that the wider IP range was originating from anywhere other than Australia and they geolocate to the same metro area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no proof the user is using PureVPN. The IP range of 101.0.71.* is owned by Digital Pacific. It is true that PureVPN has a server on this range but that doesn't necessarily confirm that this user is using PureVPN. Many companies have a server with Digital Pacific and would hence have an IP in that range not just PureVPN. Including the companies listed here. There is no conclusive evidence this user is using PureVPN and no evidence that this user was trying to evade scrutiny. This IP range should be unblocked and the user should be allowed the opportunity to open an account. BlackHades (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. Digital Pacific state that their dedicated servers come with a minimum of 5 usable IP addresses. The VPN server is located at 101.0.71.2, which means that 101.0.71.0/29 is the minimum range allocated to PureVPN. 101.0.71.6 has been used by the editor in question, so they are definitely using PureVPN. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There probably is not conclusive evidence one way or the other regarding any blocked user (their little brother might have done it). A key feature of the IP user being discussed is that their IP changed much more frequently than normal experience indicates is reasonable. That was discussed with them, and they were told several times about the desirability of creating an account so there was no question of whether the IP edits were by one person or several. The IP offered no explanation about their IP (no unusual situation mentioned). The IP declined to create an account. As soon as they were blocked, the IP complained that they could not create an account. It just does not add up to a reasonable situation. In an area known to have been inhabitated by banned POV pushers for years, the community does not need to prove conclusively that an IP-hopping user really is a problem. That particularly applies when the IP was pointedly restoring comments by a banned user, and was getting stuck into an editor who has done little recently in the area, but who is known to be a target of the banned R&I users. The IP brought their problems on themselves, and the PureVPN "coincidence" (with a very plausible technical explanation from 92.2.72.72 above—thanks) is too much to overlook. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first identified edits of the IP hopper, apart from edit-warring to blank a large section of the lede of R&I three times, stated their POV clearly.[14] It is inconsistent with the principles laid down in WP:ARBR&I. With a registered account, they would almost certainly have been topic banned (similarly to the Australian IP mentioned above, indefinitely blocked by Timotheus Canens for WP:TE). Having a hopping IP allowed them to evade scrutiny. In this thread two editors, who edited in concert with the IP hopper, are griping about the block of the narrow IP range. One of them, BlackHades, is hot off a one week arbitration enforcement block for battlefield conduct, which included frivolously reporting Dougweller as a sockpuppet of KillerChihuahua. Why does he think his complaints about the treatment of a user who harassed Dougweller will carry any weight here? Mathsci (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Stick to the issue. WP:No personal attacks. PureVPN didn't even have a server in Australia until June 2012. This user's history goes back to 2011. There's no indication that the user is trying to evade scrutiny. His IP history consistently locates back to the same location geographically well before PureVPN even ever had a server in Australia. BlackHades (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no valid "issue" in this thread. The IP hopper's edits were disruptive: restoring Echigo mole's trolling edit, knowing at the time that it had been made by a banned user; acting on it as if made by a user in good standing; harassing Dougweller on his talk page; and making personal attacks at ANI. The very narrow IP range, whether it was a VPN or not, has been used exclusively by this user. So the block has no collateral damage and prevents any further disruptive edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That UK IP is far more suspicious to me than the 101 IP. It appears to be the same individual that first made this allegation, though the IP has changed in the few days since it was last active. For those in the know, this edit would seem indicative of a certain editor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am that same IP editor. Sorry for not making that clear. However, I'm not whoever you seem to think I am. I edit as an IP, and only very sparingly at that. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP appears to be editing in good faith and does not appear to be a sockpuppet of a banned user such as Echigo mole, Mikemikev or JarlaxleArtemis. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (as with 111.161.30.218, now blocked for a year), suspicions about sockpuppetry should be reserved for WP:SPI. Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor using this IP range based in Hammersmith appears to have expertise in economics (which involves applicable mathematics, not pure mathematics).[15] There are no similarities with Echigo mole edits at all. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, IP ranges should never be rangeblocked long-term without the "anon-only" parameter. Blocking an IP range long term affects thousands of users on a given network. The best thing to do would be to change the block and place a {{anonblock}} in the summary so that established users can still edit from that range. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The range is very narrow with only 255 entries. It has only ever been used by one person.[16] Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The range includes many companies that has servers with Digital Pacific. Future Perfect's reason for blocking the user was because he wanted the user to open an account. But while at the same time he was advising the user to open an account, he blocked the user's IP range. It doesn't make sense. How can he open an account if his IP range is blocked? The block should be removed so that he may open an account as Future Perfect has advised him to do. The user has never shown that he's trying to hide anything and there's no established link between him and any banned users. As far as PureVPN, the user's history goes back long before PureVPN even ever had a server in Australia. All his IP addresses consistently comes up in the same location geographically. There's no reason to believe this isn't his real geographical location. BlackHades (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That analysis is incorrect. Running nmap on 101.0.71.2 shows that port 443 is open for the service https. Placing https://101.0.71.2 in a browser window brings up a page with "You attempted to reach 101.0.71.2, but instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as *.pointtoserver.com". Searching for "pointtoserver.com" brings up a tutorial on purevpn. This user has harassed Dougweller, taken potshots at me, restored the post of a banned user, used two illegal open proxies, etc. They are a disruption-only account and no administrator has agreed to unblock this tiny range of 256 IPs.

Since 10 days have elapsed since this request was made with no response from any administrators, please could this request now be archived by an uninvolved administrator? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

101.0.71.2 isn't even one of the IP addresses of this user so all that is irrelevant. 101.0.71.* is a lot of different companies that all have a server with Digital Pacific not just PureVPN. His history goes back long before the existence of PureVPN in Australia. PureVPN only got a server in Australia in June 2012. Link here. [17] And as far as open proxies, he used an open proxy one time asking how he's suppose to meet Future Perfect's request to create an account if his IP range is blocked on someone's talk page. He made zero edits in articles or on article talk page. And one time below only to defend against your false accusation that he is PsychKitten. BlackHades (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the entry point to the VPN. If you need further explanation, please ask Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). When blocked for a week a few days ago, FPaS wrote in your block notice, "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing with a disruptive battleground attitude, as evidenced especially in your frivolous WP:SPI report." The user editing from the IP range was editing in a similar way. You are now spending a lot of effort lobbying on his behalf. Given your activity immediately prior to the block, your request would seem to come from a wish to have him aid you in pursuing future disputes or requests like the Dougweller/KillerChihuahua SPI. That presumably is why no administrators are taking your request seriously. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the blind speculation. You accused the IP user of being PsychKitten. Then made a suggestion below that I may have an anonymous past in R&I. You were wrong on both counts. Not everything you think is true is actually true. BlackHades (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you could tone things down a notch? The SPI clerk Spitfire agreed with me that the PsychKitten case was ambiguous and in the end I was right, as the checkuser Elockid confirmed. That was due to new edits by an IP and then PsychKitten. The IP hopper edited disruptively and has since edited using two open proxies. An anonymous account using open proxies is potentially capable of anything. I cannot see anything coming out of this thread and hope that it will be closed soon. Edits constantly repeating the same things while omitting to mention the disruption would eventually end up being labelled WP:TE. Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits constantly insulating that the IP user was banned due to disruption would be WP:TE. You keep insinuating that the IP user was banned for disruption which is absolutely false. Future Perfect banned him because he wanted the IP user to open an account. See here [18]. But at the same time of telling the IP user to open an account, he banned his IP range hence preventing him from opening an account. Why you're bringing up "disruption" is beyond me as that was never the reason for the ban. BlackHades (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP hopper edited disruptively, harassing Dougweller on his talk page. You were blocked for disruption and harassment of Dougweller and KillerChihuahua at WP:SPI. Please stop making trolling edits. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should just be reduced to a softblock, and then have them get an account on ACC. This way, if they really are a socker then any further socking can be prevented, and they can be dealt with as a single user. Other logged-in editors in this range would thus not be affected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New account User:PsychKitten editing using open proxy

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.

---

• 202.105.113.132 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• PsychKitten (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This account was created on Feb 22 and today they have been using an open proxy 202.105.113.132:8080 from China.[19][20] The targeted articles are the same as those frequented by Mikemikev, but the style and POV are more like those of the IP hopper. Initially I posted a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev before seeing something funny about this. I removed the report, but the SPI clerk Spitfire confirmed that the IP used was an open proxy from China on 8080. As there is no reason for Mikemikev to use an IP outside Korea, this is more likely to be the IP hopper, bypassing the block of the IP range. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent ongoing edits on Talk:Race and intelligence confirm this identification. The IP has also been reported at WP:OP. Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the "IP hopper", commenting from Melbourne via a proxy. PsychKitten is not me. I don't know if it is Mikemikev or Echigo mole, but it isn't me. I haven't made an account after Future Perfect disabled registration from my IPs, and I intend to wait for the outcome of this thread before I do. 54.243.69.129 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, on what evidence specifically is there that you think PsychKitten is related to IP 101.0.71.*? All you said is that you think "style and POV" is similar but you haven't stated specifically why you think this. BlackHades (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly not a new user per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. No new user arrives at wikipedia and heads to Talk:Race and intelligence, Talk:Race and genetics and Talk:Race (human classification) with a complete knowledge of the back history. On the other hand this could still be Mikemikev because of the first edit to Franz Boas. That edit might have been made using a different IP. At WP:OP the IP has been confirmed as an open proxy and has been hard blocked for two years by Materialscientist. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As you said, this might be Mikemikev or someone else even. But I don't see any evidence PsychKitten is the IP user or "IP hopper" in question. BlackHades (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, determining this kind of thing can be tricky. In your case for example you once edited logged off from an ISP in Las Vegas.[21] Then in December 2010, during a break in editing on your registered account, an anonymous user with the same ISP in Las Vegas edit warred on Talk:Race and intelligence, resulting in a 31 hour block.[22] It went unnoticed at the time. Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue who that anonymous user was but I can say with absolute 100% certainly that the anonymous user was not me. His writing style is nothing like mine. I've never displayed such fixation with Han Chinese material the way he does. I don't think I've even ever uttered such a phrase in any of my edits whether in article or in talk. It's quite clear from this person's edit history such as Republic of China Armed Forces, Soong May-ling, and mentioning Han Chinese repeatedly in Race and Inteliigence that this person is of Chinese descent. I am not. I would also never link a youtube video as a source. I had no reason to edit anonymously as my account was in perfectly good standing. Note that Cox Communications essentially has a monopoly of internet access in Southern Nevada. So anyone from there would have an IP with Cox Communications. This would be millions of people. BlackHades (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, 54.243.69.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also an open HTTP proxy, this time on port 8000. Someone may want to block that? I've also sent an email to ec2-abuse@amazon.com about that one, although whether they'll actually do anything about closing the proxy is another matter... Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looks like that one's down now. Perhaps Amazon shut that hole. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP 54.243.69.129 was clearly used as a one time only thing by 101.0.71.* or "IP hopper" to defend against the assertion that Mathsci made. There's no indication he plans to continue using the open proxy. BlackHades (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's just common practice to block any open proxies we find, per policy. Additionally I thought it was polite to let Amazon know that one of their rented servers had an open proxy on it - generally VPS providers/webhosts prefer not to have these running. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Psychkitten is definitely not a new user. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite right :-) The timing of your comment is eerie: PsychKitten has just been blocked by CU Elockid along with an obvious Mikemikev ipsock 112.160.35.80. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2013 (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.

Issue not solved

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 week ago, I posted at WP:ANI concerning a tiresome edit-war by Strangesad [23]. The issue concerns a paragraph Strangesad wants to include. As I wrote, there is a broad consensus on the talk page not to include it [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. While no user has spoken out in favor of the paragraph, Strangesad still inserts it over and over again. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. When I brought the topic to ANI, there was some support for a block on Strangesad [36], some concerns over his behavior [37], and no expressed opposition to my proposal. Strangesad kept calm while the matter was on ANI, but now that it's been archived (but not closed) he has again returned to revert over exactly the same issue again. [38] May I ask that the issue be settled, one way or another?Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring against consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ahha, so this is where Jeppiz goes to forum shop nowadyas. An inappropriate venue, based on the description at the top of my page right now.
• I'm curious about the standards for fairness around here. I started an ANI on a related issue, was told to take it to dispute resolution, and did so. Jeppiz immediately accused me of "forum shopping." Jeppiz started a double ANI on SS and myself a week ago [39], got no results, and started another ANI (AN?) here because SS made a single edit. A week prior to Jeppiz's last two ANIs, in yet another ANI, he proposed a topic ban for me which got no result. Now he shows up here complaining again about the same essential issue and it is not forum shopping. Instead, he gets the block he's been fishing for for weeks. Why isn't this forum shopping?
• SS requested a topic ban for Jeppiz, and was immediately accused of acting in bad faith by an admin and warned for it. Jeppiz proposed a topic ban for me, and nobody gave a shit. Why do admns think it is bad faith to ask for a topic ban for Jeppiz, but not when Jeppiz wants one for me?
• Jeppiz's list of links above is dishonest. Almost everything he's said in the last weeks regarding this group of issues taken as whole has been dishonest. He's just gunning to see editors he dislikes get punished.
• I'm sorry. It's pretty hard to believe admins are careful, unbiased, and fair--that they follow this rule: "administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." Or that they understand they are making things worse.
• One thing that my critics have very right is that I have found it impossible to work on the subjects I initially registered to work on, because of all this drama. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for me. I dislike unfairness. Humanpublic (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Humanpublic has a long history of violating WP:CIVIL. Based on his constant attacks on other users, several users wanted him block already last week [40]. The closing admin then issued a final warning to Humanpublic over his behavior [41]. I would say his actions today shows he ignores the pleas for him to start behaving more civil. Not only did he go straight to Resurrection of Jesus to take up Strangesad's edit war after Strangesad was blocked [42], he also launched attacks at various users [43], [44], [45] and the above accusations about me. (As for why all admins who expressed an opinion thought it was WP:POINT to suggest topic ban for me, it might have to do with the fact that I had edited the article Resurrection of Jesus once, to restore the consensus...). These diffs show Humanpublic is bent on continuing to disregard WP:CIVIL despite the final warning given one week ago.Jeppiz (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call all those diffs personal attacks. That said, HP has some major issues with their attitude here. I tend to agree with HP that Wikipedia is not the right place for them. The reinsertion of the problematic content at the article was pointy at best. I've reverted it and locked the article for 3 days. I'm tempted to block HP so they can put me on their list of "incompetent admins", but I haven't taken that step ... yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

They're requesting vanishing so we can put the pitchforks down. NE Ent 16:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the gratuitous pitchfork comment, (a) they're not requesting vanishing in the right way and (b) it's not clear they're entitled to a courtesy vanish. Their pointy comments on their user and talk pages are confirmation of both. That said, one way or the other, going away would be a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, is your answer ever anything other than "Not Our Problem"? This is supposed to be a project to write an encyclopedia, not an online libertarian experiment in free speech. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Conflict resolution sucks on WP; we have a procedure, several in fact, but they can be gamed, and dragged out, and ignored. Often the "winner" is the side that is more willing to waste other peoples' time, or more willing to risk a block by testing the boundaries of our policies. I have no idea who is right in the underlying content dispute, and leave it for more patient minds than mine to deal with; from what I've seen, there's enough blame on each side to go around. However, when someone inserts the exact same paragraph into an article 4-5 times, is met with near-unanimous opposition on the talk page, waits a couple of days, and re-inserts the exact same paragraph again, knowing in advance it doesn't have consensus, they can only be considered disruptive. To pretend that blocking this editor for 24 hours for edit warring (after many previous warnings about it) is somehow "taking sides" demonstrates either dishonesty, or incompetence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23's attitude, amounting to "good riddance", is disturbing. Humanpublic was a quasi-newish editor who stumbled into the mother of all controversial subjects. Jeppiz, is, in fact, an editor who mostly hangs around the drama boards and tries to "win" games. Coming here was forum shopping, which Floq rewarded. We should be trying to retain editors, not telling them that "going away would be a good idea." Kim Dent-Brown's involvement, and the block of me were unnecessary. I had no intention of edit warring. I genuinely thought I'd test the BRD cycle again, because it had been a week and there had been some discussion in Talk. The block did not change my behavior. Kim Dent-Borwn's one-sided threats did not change anyone's behavior. With the exception, in both cases, of pissing off those who needed to cool down. The main effect was the alienation of a semi-newbi editor who was making good but unpopular points. Somebody should write Zen and the Art of Adminning. Strangesad (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The block did not change my behavior. So you're asking it to be made permanent? I'm sure that could be arranged. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to think Humnapublic had the right idea. Strangesad (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I see Strangesad is back from her block to comment on me being "an editor who mostly hangs around the drama boards and tries to "win" games". It's not particularly WP:CIVIL. It's also completely untrue, before coming across Strangesad and Humanpublic in February 2013, my last comments on ANI were in October 2010. So much for me hanging "around the drama boards", but the accusation is typical of Strangesad. And contrary to what she says, many users do stop being disruptive after learning about the rules. That Strangesad insists her block won't change her behavior, and the she blames it all on me and various admins, is not promising, but luckily many other users do improve.Jeppiz (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Scanning Talk:Resurrection of Jesus shows some misguided attempts to misuse Wikipedia to push a hard "religion is nonsense" line. Editors need to be firmly told that this website is not used to right great wrongs, and religious topics should be treated in an encylopedic manner, not used as an opportunity for rubbishing the opponent. It's all very well to adopt Hume's reasoning that there are no reliable reports of miracles, but "scientific" views of resurrection are not required in Resurrection of Jesus which concerns a claimed miracle. Continuing a similar line on any articles concerning religion would be highly disruptive. I totally agree with Calton's comment at 04:01, 3 March 2013 above that we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not conducting an experiment in free speech, and this noticeboard needs to resolve some of the more obvious problems or shut down because the "let's be nice to everyone" responses is enabling nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• HP correctly self-diagnosed that they're not a good fit for Wikipedia [46] and requested assistance in departing. What "problem" needs to be solved? NE Ent 12:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think Humanpublic's retirement message was the best summary of their issues: they were unable to push their anti-religious POV, and could not accept that articles can and will exist about faith-based topics (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Humanpublic's departure is the most WP:DIVA-esque ragequit I've ever seen. It's clear that he's only here to push an anti-religion ideology on a major website and has no interest in writing in a neutral tone. If he ever comes back, I think a topic ban is necessary. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's get some facts straight, admins.

1. Humanpublic's main edit was a factual and sourced statement that there is no physical evidence for the existence of Jesus. It was factual, it was sourced, and it was obviously relevant to the topic at hand. It was 2-3 sentences. His main concern on the Talk page is that Christians aren't objective about Jesus, and most of the article's sourcing is to Christian theologians.
2. The comments of Bwilkins, Johnuniq, and Basalisk are unfair and exhibit the characteristics they complain about. There is no anti-religious POV in suggesting skepticism have a voice. It is not anti-religious POV to suggest Christians aren't objective about Jesus. It is not anti-religious POV to suggest that 3 sentences of relevant sourced factual material belongs in the article. Bwilkins' suggestion that somebody wants to prevent the existence of faith-based topics is dishonest. Nobody suggested any deletions. I suggested adding one sentence, and Humanpublic suggested adding a couple.
3. The article Resurrection of Jesus is not about a miracle. It is about a claimed miracle, an alleged event. There is no entitlement to have only the Christian view of the alleged event represented in the article, any more than there such an entitlement in the Creationism article. It is not an anti-religious POV to say that skepticism belongs in articles about alleged miracles. If you want an article strictly about Christian view of the resurrection, name it appropriately, and keep historicity out of it......
4. The article cites a source stating the resurrection is biography not myth. But, a source stating that, obviously, it is myth since people don't come back from the dead is not being allowed. And it's an anti-religious POV to suggest that's a double-standard, according to ya'll. Some of you should look in the mirror.
5. The recent commentary above really shows that editors--and some admins--have a pro-religious POV to push on Wikipedia. If you could be bothered with getting the facts straight and basic logical fairness, you would be more credible. It is disgusting that main activity of admins, after a well-meaning semi-new editor has been alienated, is to glorify in it and call him a diva. Grow up. Admins should be role-models. Strangesad (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is wikipedia, facts are actually not of primary importance (as strange as that may seem) -- see WP:V for explanation of why that is. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model; what the above discussion shows is not a pro-religious POV but rather expectation that editors follow the community consensus model. We don't do fair, either, per no justice. Finally, even if folks do need to grow up, telling them to "grow up" doesn't actually work and just annoys folk further. NE Ent 15:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, a consensus model can have a pro-religious bias, so you are producing a false dichotomy. More to the point, the main evidence for pro-religious bias were the distortions and specious logic of the editors here, in accusing people of anti-religious bias. It is not an anti-religious bias to think skepticism belongs in religious articles. I am not motivated by an anti-religious bias: the suggestion to the contrary violates AGF and is a personal insult. That's disruptive, now apply your blocking standards to yourselves. Fabricating specious allegations as an excuse for calling for topic-bans for dissenting minorities is a pro-religious bias.
• For the record WP:DIVA states: "A Wikipedia diva is a long-time user...." Humanpublic was semi-new. Admins bullied a newbie. What a bunch of tough-guys. Strangesad (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: There is no "physical evidence" for a huge number of folks back then - but that is not the same as "proof of non-existence." And to assert "myth" is indeed asking Wikipedia to assert "proof of non-existence" in articles relating to religions. This is not the same as mentioning skeptical beliefs as skeptical beliefs but the apparent edits aimed at making those beliefs into "fact" which is improper AFAICT. It is also a Homer Simpson moment to note that articles about religion have a weird likelihood of being about theology - really. Collect (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2013 (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.

SPIs when the master could be one of several?

Do we have any way to do an SPI when we don't know who the master is? User:Zakwp was created today, and after some spelling changes in articles (some of which violated WP:ENGVAR), jumped into an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI with this edit. This means it's almost certainly one of the people involved in the dispute...but I have no way of knowing which one. Is there anything that can be done here that's consistent with CU policy? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We can simply ask them. NE Ent 12:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, if there's two that are very similar to each other, but you think there's an underlying master, create an SPI for the two and then the CU that checks, if they do, will more than likely find the master (if not stale). Or you could just ask :) gwickwire^talk_editing 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting user-rights change

I've requested an editor review in respect of my alternate account here : Wikipedia:Editor_review/Sfan00_IMG because of this, I'd like to temporarily surrender certain userrights (on both accounts), namely file-mover and auto-patrol, because I am not confident of my abilities at present ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. (Naturally without prejudice towards a request to reinstate.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

75.207.46.227

this user is keep changing the Red Hot Chili Peppers name to Under Coasters and I keep undoing it but the user is keep doing it so can we warn the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegas30 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• 75.207.46.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) two edits, routine vandalism, best just to ignore for now. (Thanks for reverting, of course). If it continues I'm sure a mop wielder will block it. In the future you can use WP:AIV to let admins know about this sort of thing. NE Ent 21:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

80.251.5.106

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.

---

Does this need any more comments?! Please also see this earlier report. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for one month for so many reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2013 (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.

Proposing community ban on JoshuSasori

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.

---

JoshuSasori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JoshuSasori has been involved in sockpuppetry since his block for disruptive editing and harassment of Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) (formerly the user Elvenscout742) back in February 2013. He has used numerous IPs and four confirmed sockpuppets to continue this disruptive activity as clearly explained in the SPI case about him. This last round of sockpuppetry and harassment is the last straw. I therefore would like to propose an indefinite community ban on JoshuSasori.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - I'm sick to death of the hounding of Hijiri, this user needs to be kicked (metaphorically) as far away as possible. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone may want to look into this user [[47]]. He has so far created 10 move requests, all of which involve Japanese to English and 8 of them had been previous created by a sock of this user before being closed. While anything is possible, I highly doubt that this is a coincidence.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that the IP has the same geographical location (Tokyo, Japan). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked (and contribs rolled back). Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support - The guy's harassment of Hijiri is too much, and the socking isn't helping at all. ZappaOMati 21:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support This user had WP:NPA problems even when we were applying AGF to him. The escalation attacks through various socks shows, at the very least, a complete lack of respect towards the community. WP:NOTTHERAPY needs to be applied. MarnetteD | Talk 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious WP:NOTHERE issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, although it's not needed. This editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose YAPCBD (Yet another pointless community ban discussion). How will banning an indef blocked editor improve Wikipedia? If the answer is some mythical rogue admin unblocking indef'd editors, please provide diffs. NE Ent 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori has made veiled threats that are meant to intimidate other editors, disruptive accusations of personal attacks, as well as his own personal attacks in the following diffs: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. These led to an indefinite block. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. What useful improvement to Wikipedia does changing an editors' status from indef blocked (defacto banned) to community banned do?NE Ent 18:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We wanted something more formal. I think the ban would be helpful because it would greatly cut down on the time wasted on his antics. With a ban in place, we can cut straight straight to the chase and revert him on sight. No more wasting of the time of constructive editors such as Hijiri88 or myself (even though I am not involved). After numerous cycles of doing this, it will get rather tiresome, especially when you see it unfold the same way every time. I'm tired of JoshuSasori's antics in general. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no difference in your ability to revert blocked or banned editors: see Wikipedia:Blocked#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_blocked_editors NE Ent 20:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy that, but just because he has not been indefinitely blocked does not mean that he will not convince an uninvolved administrator that he should be unblocked. What's more, a community ban can lead to anyone reverting his edits in defiance of a ban, good or bad, per the banning policy. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How is that different that what the block policy says? NE Ent 21:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The hounding and pervasive good hand-bad hand sockpuppetry justify this, though as others have said the ban just formalizes the status quo.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No bans without allowing people to defend themselves. Strangesad (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The issue is that this user could, as of now, be unblocked by any admin, for any reason (within reason). That won't happen probably, but having it as a "on the books, community" ban would mean that only the community or ArbCom could overrule it. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can you provide a diff of when this has happened in the past? NE Ent 21:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nope. But I don't need to. You know as well as we do that just because he hasn't been unblocked yet doesn't mean in the future he won't convince an admin (probably one not around for this discussion) that he should be unblocked. Making it a real community ban means that that CANNOT per policy happen. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• True that. I also know that this "bans the indeffed editor" discussions are a waste of time. NE Ent 21:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Then you should also also know that indef=/=infinite, and only a community ban is truly infinite until community decides otherwise. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment per this section the account has been compromised. As such, I suggest that a note be made on a (created) user page to inform any incoming admins. Editors willing to compromise their own accounts should not be editing under any circumstances. — Ched :  ?  21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Roger that. I am going to post a note there Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as basically a mop-up job, as per Cuchullain above. If such actions are a waste of time, it is the option of editors involved to choose to waste their time in such discussions, and on that basis I don't see any real grounds for complaining about people being allowed to express their opinions. Also, maybe wasting a little time now is preferable to wasting a lot of time later, possibly having to deal with developments which could have been avoided if action had been taken earlier. Also strongly believe that Ched's news above is more than sufficient to justify action in this case. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per NE Ent and others. Community bans do no one any good, and they are generally ineffective.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any actual research on their effectiveness? Strangesad (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Oppose I see absolutely no benefit in this to anyone involved and it's an outrage that it was even suggested. As Strangesad pointed out, maybe some actual research wouldn't go amiss??? I mean come on. LalaLAND (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Umm, who are you? You've been editing for all of 2 days now, and nearly half your edits are AN/I related. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per NE Ent and others. It seems to me that Sasori was doing a lot of good work at MOS-JA and in Japanese film articles (as well as mentoring other editors) for about a year before the run-in with elvenscout742 > Hijiri88. elvenscout742 apparently has a record of disagreements with at least one other editor since about August (he had an interaction ban with a poetry editor), and there's evidence that Sasori was provoked by elvenscout742 repeatedly making irrational moves to Sasori's articles without discussion, before Sasori got angry and started hitting back. There seems to be no evidence that Sasori had any trouble with any other editors, at least before he was blocked. It seems that Sasori was blocked because he didn't understand how he was supposed to defend himself, and he wasn't "keeping a score"; there's strong evidence that he is a veteran professional film reviewer and industry insider (as Mysterious Island he tidied up the Donald Richie article before Richie's death appeared in newspapers), whereas elvenscout742 is apparently a new graduate. elvenscout742 was posting on my user page and stalking me for two or three days (and he came back to my talk page for some "grave dancing" when Sasori was blocked—"grave dancing" is not the term that I'd expect a victim to use), then he started SCREAMING at people, changed his Username to Hijiri (meaning Saint?), and disappeared from Wikipedia around Feb. 23-24. Surely Sasori should be allowed to defend himself before he is community banned. Sasori's proposed article moves were mostly made to articles that he had created, and at least one of these moves (at Yūji Oda) was supported by two very productive Japan project veterans, User:Ryulong and User:DAJF. This proposal to community ban him seems vindictive and unproductive at best. LittleBen (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but your usual "Not Our Problem" post does not really apply here, as we are talking about JoshuSasori's behavior. He was doing good until he got into the run-in with Hijiri88 and since then, he has harass the user in question as clearly explained in the SPI and in other ANI threads. It should be made very clear that being a producer of good content producer is never excuse for poor and uncivil behavior, like JoshuSasori has done over the past couple of months. Unfortunately, we can't waste any more time with JS's behavior. Here is the message left by TParis when JoshuSasori was blocked indefinitely:

You have been blocked for veiled threats meant to intimidate other editors, disruptive accusations of personal attacks, and for your own actual personal attacks in diffs: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. You're failure to substantiate your claims of being hounded at all and insistence that others dig up the evidence for you were not very effective arguments at WP:ANI or WP:DRN.

As I have already stated above, we're talking about a community ban on JoshuSasori about his behavior, not about the quality of his work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Surely there is a difference between "veiled" (perceived) threats and actual threats. Is it productive to revert positive contributions from an IP because they are from an IP? If he were behaving like Bre'r Rabbit and—for many years—repeatedly creating socks while blocked in order to continue to edit war then it would be a different story. Bre'r Rabbit even participated in discussions about blocking or topic banning other editors, and said the equivalent of, "I don't know anything about the area in question but I support the block/topic ban".
• <Quote>You're failure to substantiate your claims of being hounded at all and insistence that others dig up the evidence for you were not very effective arguments<Unquote>. As I explained, even just a cursory look at some of the articles shows evidence of elvenscout making repeated irrational moves to Sasori's articles (articles that elvenscout had not contributed to) without any discussion, knowing that such moves would be controversial. I didn't check the time stamps, but I think this is what started it all. Surely elvenscout should have earned his second interaction ban in six months rather than being tagged as a blameless victim for the second time in six months. LittleBen (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2013 (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.

The new interlanguage interwiki system stored in Wikidata

• In this system, how can a user make the first interlanguage interwiki link on a page which so far has no such links? Currently such a page shows nowhere to click to set up the first such link. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You just need to create a new entry on Wikidata. The process is almost the same as creating a new article, but about 500 times faster. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In more detail:
    1. Open Wikidata
    2. Search for the term you want
    3. If it's already there, it should show up in your search results.
    4. If it's not there yet, add an entry
    • 1. click "create a new item"
      2. Enter the name of the entry (i.e. label; no disambiguation terms, so Imagine (song) would just be Imagine)
      3. Enter a description
      4. Click "create"
      5. Add language links by adding the site name (based on language) and the article as it appears on that site
    1. Voila! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed The searching is a little buggy, and you may start adding interlanguage links only to find that there is already an entry that the search has missed. If that happens, move the appropriate links into one of the two entries you have, and list the other at Requests for Deletion with a note to that effect. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• And, own experience today: if you have a punctuation mark in the article title, don't be surprised if there are errors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh indeed, e.g. [60] --j⚛e decker^talk 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The Wikidata search is a mess. Once we start converting disambig interwiki links to Wikidata, you'll see all the problems arising from it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• The process is simplified by the slurpInterwiki gadget provided the pre-existance of at least one article on some language with all the interwikis. However, problems do arise when something that is a single article here is two articles somewhere else.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For the first entry wouldn't it just suffice to create an interwiki link on the Wikipedia article page as usual and let the bots convert them? De728631 (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Easy move request

Per WP:COMMONNAME, here's a quickie easy move request, can an admin please move the page Charge description master to the single word term "Chargemaster" ?

The single word term "chargemaster" is the much more frequently used term upon examination of a preponderance of thousands of reliable secondary sources.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, — Cirt (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed on ITN/C

Resolved

 – ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Two stories on WP:ITN/C have been marked as "ready" for a couple days now, meaning an admin needs to check the consensus+article status and post or reject. It seems the regular admins are not around right now as normally these things are handled w/in a couple hours, not a couple days. Any help would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically, only one has significant support. Janez Janša has little interest and there's still some debate over whether Slovenia "losing" a government should be ITN. I'll have a look at the other one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68

Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally reversed a block placed by two oversighters relating to the repeated posting of personal information. Kevin failed to obtain agreement for the unblocking from either the oversighters or the Arbitration Committee prior to doing so. Accordingly, Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee.

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Courcelles, Hersfold, David Fuchs, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
• Oppose: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare
• Not voting: AGK, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
• Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion under consideration regarding Oversight-related blocks

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on Oversight-related blocks. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the general discussion section.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 07:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A request for a block review that has been unanswered for quite some time

The user has requested a review of their block User_talk:3abos#Blocked that has gone almost a day without a response. Can someone take a look at it? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long time. I've unblocked, since as far as I can tell this user's problems (aside from a misunderstanding about the username itself) have all been on LGBT-related topics, and the user's essentially pledged a self-imposed topic ban. I'm not particularly convinced by statements from others such as "The suggestion that there is no neutrality, only a dictatorship of the majority, is battleground stuff" — Wikipedia is deeply non-neutral in multiple places, and that's why I am careful to stay in uncontentious areas like historic preservation. Of course, I've warned him to be extremely careful to stay away from the topic, since I don't believe he'll be able to avoid controversy when editing there, but I don't see comparable problems arising as long as he's working elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a sec ... I declined an unblock at 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC), and he filed a new one at 3abos (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC) ... how is that "a long time", and what changed in his request between my decline and his new request? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I sort of remember this guy. Judging by his edit history, he was here principally to promote a homophobic point of view, and rather incompetently too. No way I'd have unblocked somebody with this track record under almost any circumstance. Even if he doesn't touch sex-related stuff, his edits reflect a general lack of competence and ability to understand our principle of neutrality that makes me believe that most of his edits are not likely to improve Wikipedia. (Just compare only his most recent edit to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Forced image size.)  Sandstein  21:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Admins who started as vandals

I recall from several years ago a particular admin who was very forth coming about his beginning on Wikipedia as a vandal. He had posted a piece about his conversion, that still impacts my decisions today. I can't recall the name, nor do I seem to have made note of the piece. The essay The motivation of a vandal mentions the propensity of conversion but lacks references to specific persons. While it would not be my intent to point fingers, the particular person I am thinking of was not shy about sharing. If they would consent to being used as an example on the essay, and possibly reminding me where they posted the piece so I could reference it in the future that would be great. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of Rootology, but I don't think he is currently active (although I haven't checked recently); at least under that particular account. — Ched :  ?  18:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

update: Now a redirect to User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing — Ched :  ?  18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure if it was them or someone else, not finding the piece I remember, thanks for responding. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC closure

Resolved

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Could an admin close my RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have define the wrong scope of the issue and posted it at the wrong page. I would like to withdraw my RFC nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Urgent protection needed

Could an admin please semi-protect Cüneyt Çakır now? I've already filed a request for semi-protection but it's taking some time and things are getting out of hands.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: Sarek and I practically fell over each other in our hurry to protect. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. It's seldom a hurry at Wikipedia, but with 4-5 IP-insults per minute, and probably more to come when the game finishes, I thought it best to fix it fast. Thanks for the fast action!Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

General canvassing question.

Reading WP:DDE and WP:BAN (which says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ") leads me to post here. What if I have noticed that over the long term, an unusually large fraction of one users edits appear to be disruptive, tendentious, hostile, and/or edit warring, though blatant 3RR violation is avoided, and I see imposition of 1RR or full block would be a solution, as many users have left the user constructive feedback, but it's clear from the responses that it falls on deaf ears, as it is often removed or hatted? What if he is arguing with many editors in ways that frequently lead to well-founded accusations of policy violations, and the rule, rather than the exception, is that the user refuses to get the point - whether it is a clear explanation of how policy applies or does not apply to a particular edit or series of edits? If I posted the offending user's name and request action, them I'm wondering if it'd be appropriate to notify users that have offered the user constructive feedback, or that I see as recent victims of the editor, or if that counts as a violation of the [[WP:CANVAS|canvassing]] guideline. I would think that sending a neutral notice to the last n posters to the users talk page would be appropriate, and 'improve the quality of the discussion' by but thought I'd ask here first. Of course, I'd notify the editor, provide diffs, etc. Or perhaps it would be best just post here or to AN/I, and hope the user didn't do his own stealth canvassing, and trust that the users edits would likely be enough to bury him. --Elvey (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a tricky issue. I would say that such notifications would count as canvassing, because no matter how neutral your notices are, they would be going to a non-neutral group of recipients. But, certain other rules can trump WP:CANVASS. For instance, if you posted a thread about them here, and mentioned their interactions with other editors, you would be obliged to provide notices. Likewise, anyone watching their talk page, likely including editors they have had past negative interactions with, will likely see and investigate your notification of taking them to what ever venue you end up taking them to. AN and AN/I are also active enough venues that it would be hard to canvass enough people to matter without red flags going up. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Elvey appears to have taken your comment as approval to assemble a lynch mob, in the sense that he has notified five other editors who might be seen as anatagonistic to me in a complaint he has filed (below). (And in two cases forgot to sign his notice.) Only one of those editors matches someone that has "offered the user constructive feedback" (though on a different matter), and only one other is involved in the matters he complains of. The others have had no involvment in the matters complained of (see Talk:Earthquake prediction), and appear to have been included only on the basis of partisanship. In fact Elvey's question is not truly general, and certainly not neutral, but was asked in connection with a specific issue, with an ulterior purpose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

are you only going to poke the other guy in thr eye, or do you plan to respond to the substance of his complaint in the other thread, about your own choices?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer unblock request

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.

---

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

This user who was blocked in 2009 requests an unblock. I feel that this request should be accepted, but also feel that it's something that needs to be decided by the community. Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblocking I'm a fan of additional chances, and in light of the scope and nature of the past disruption, I think 3+ years is long enough that another chance would be fair. That they requested an unblock, rather then just resuming to edit under a new account, that would be difficult to link to them after such a long time, also speaks well for them. Assuming there is no evidence to contradict the 3+ years of respecting the block, I support an unblock. Monty₈₄₅ 15:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. What Monty845 said. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Of course unblocks are cheap. NE Ent 16:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock. We have rope, so why not use it? If they resume their disruptive behavior, someone can always reblock them. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Monty845. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Monty — Ched :  ?  03:51, 7 March 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Meetup/University of Oregon - Heads up about account creations

Hi everyone. I am doing a workshop and an edit-a-thon this weekend - Wikipedia:Meetup/University of Oregon - and Friday I'm doing a workshop where I'm attempting to teach about 40 people how to edit Wikipedia. They'll be making accounts and so forth, and most will be using computers provided by the University of Oregon. I've heard about people having horror stories of IP's being blocked for this type of thing, so, I'm just letting ya know ahead of time. People will chose their own usernames (aka no institutional names or whatever), and are making good faith edits (we'll be stopping by the Teahouse, for example and working in sandboxes). So...just a heads up! Please don't block us :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I also might be making a good faith sockpuppet to explain how to create an account. I'll probably call it User:SarahStierch2 or something. So no, I'm not going to be doing it in bad faith . Thanks again. SarahStierch (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong forum, file a bugzilla request with the specific IPs that need the account creation limit to be lifted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think she was asking for help; I read it as being simply a "don't wonder what's going on" notice. Sarah's an admin, so she can create unlimited accounts; if they hit the creation limit, she'll be able to create them herself. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I just had a flashback to being a new editor and being treated like an idiot :) Yes, I just wanted everyone to have a heads up. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think most native English speakers understood you. It would be nice if you could write a general sitenotice, but control its distribution through specific channels, for example, allowing a small note to be displayed in automated tools used by RC patrollers. For example, if someone tried to warn one of these editors, the tool would flag the patroller as to the nature of the IP. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for user Ricky072

I am proposing the following user Ricky072 be topic banned from all articles relating to Rangers F.C the user only really edits these types of articles, and currently there is a content dispute, which never involved this editor at first, but they decided to join in when the editors who had the dispute had reached a agreement and consensus on how to resolve the issue, they then joined in and opposed the change, and have made it clear they have no intentions to comprise so basically being disruptive i quote the user "'m not willing to compromise - we have 2 editors here who have dedicated themselves to being a disruptive as possible without foundation on the basis they did not get their own way in the "new club" or "phoenix club" deabte." the full discussion can be found here Talk:Rangers_F.C.#So_now_we.27re_reporting_each_other.

As can be seen here from there contritions, Ricky072 (talk · contribs) they are mostly on the article above and any article relating to it, and the odd edit to the club rivals article.

There is two other users who might have to be reported for a topic ban as well, as these 3 editors are preventing a consensus and being disruptive as it does not suit there POV. I accept i did warn the editors i would do this but i did give them the chance to try and resolve it and not to be so obsrutive but the editor/editors are choosing to be. I really did not want to go down this route but believe there is is no other choice given the editor attuide such that a consensus will not be reached

PS i did spell check but it never offered the words i was trying to spell feel free to fix it Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User informed nowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've in no way breached any Wikipedia guidelines - I simply stated in the talk pages i didn't think facts should be 'compromised' to appease disruptive users. This is a case of over-zealousness from Andrew who acts as if he is some kind of Wikipedia authority. Ricky072 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

please read wp:truth the same policie that i reminded the editors who where pushing a new club agenda wikipedia is not about truth only what reliable sources say, reliable sources say what the editors who had the dispute in the first place and they reacha comprise but that comprise is not to you POV. you might have breeched WP:3rr ive not checked. Again i am not any authority or admin or anything i am merely makign sure the article sticks to policies and it can come to FA eventally but this sort of dispute can hold that back.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Can some non involved editors please take a look at this, as it is esclating nd cousing the content dispute to not be resolved. (NOTE this is not to get the content dispute resolved but to decided if the user should be topic banned if they are determines they are being disruptive by being obsrutive in getting a consensus) i really do not want to move this onto ANI to get it noticed and replied toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Very high level of global vandalism from three IP ranges

In January 2013 someone started removing informations and adding wrong informations from three Bosnian ranges to a lot of articles about football (not just in English Wikipedia) Here you can find a report by me about this from January. After I reported this vandalism two ranges were blocked in January for two weeks/one month [61] [62]

This ranges are:

• 92.36.208.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 31.176.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

After this block he started editing from a third range:

• 109.175.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

In the last weeks new edits from this three ranges caused again a lot of damage. Here a list of IPs of this ranges (WITHOUT the vandalism-IPs from January) which I found without having the opportunity to see all edits from this ranges:

• 92.36.208.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.36.209.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.36.214.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.36.219.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 31.176.241.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.176.245.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.176.248.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 109.175.54.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.175.55.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.175.56.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.175.58.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.175.64.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.175.82.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Obviuosly it is again the same manner of vandalism from all three ranges. Sometimes the same articles are damaged and sometimes the same fake names are added into the articles. He also likes to add wrong squad numbers.

I do not know if there is still more vandalism by IPs from this ranges which I could not find and I fear that again a range block could be the only way to stop this vandalism. --Yoda1893 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I found two more IPs from this range which were also used in February and March by the vandal in English Wikipedia:

* 31.127.75.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 92.36.217.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The most of this IPs made also disruptive edits in another language versions of Wikipedia (even like he did in January). I also found some more IPs from this ranges which created just in another language versions vandalism [63] [64] So range blocks just in English Wikipedia can not completely solve the problem. --Yoda1893 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are you sure about 31.127.75.69? That's a British mobile phone company IP. The rest are all from the same Bosnian ISP. I think that might be a false positive. Black Kite (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. This one was added by me due to a mix-up. After I undid the vandalism from this three ranges now for three hours in a lot of language versions I became a little bit confused. ;) --Yoda1893 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Another two which are definitely IPs of this vandal:
    • 109.175.51.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 31.176.243.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Yoda1893 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Last straw for Wikipediocracy

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.

---

This is really the last straw. We've enabled Wikipedia Review and lately Wikipediocracy for years and all the chilling effects they've tried to have on Wikipedia and its editors, even though the site is largely made up of banned editors. But the recent incident involving Cla68 and Kevin (which i'm not discussing here, go to the Arbcom discussion page if you want to argue that one out) went too far. Actively, during the discussion, there was a long discussion thread going on at Wikipediocracy, wherein banned editor Vigilant began outing/doxing any editors whose comments he disliked from the discussion, including doing so to a minor. This was in an attempt to get those editors to stop participating in the Wikipedia discussion. Something really needs to be done or steps need to be taken, because this sort of thing can't just be allowed. Make all the jokes you want about the old WP:BADSITES policy, but the strong-arm tactics on Wikipediocracy's part remains. Silverseren^C 05:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Support some form of action against all users involved, which if you want a list and proof and evidence you can contact me privately. This has gone way too far, to the point that users are being censored from an ArbCom case for fear of retaliation by doxing/outing and or other onwiki harassment, which has already happened to users who disagree with the Wikipediocracians point of view, including one administrator. This cannot happen, or Wikipedia will not be able to function by consensus, as consensus will become "who's on the opposite side of WO, let's dox them to scare them away". gwickwire^talk_editing 05:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What is written on Wikipediocracy's forums is only a problem if people read it. Perhaps you should stop reading it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I don't want people being able to read my personal information. At all. It's a problem because people can read it. They're blatantly violating Wikipedia policies, but since it's not on Wikipedia, nobody seems to care. gwickwire^talk_editing 05:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If the information is then put into Examiner articles by people like banned editor Kohser, what then? The whole point is that the doxing is trying to be made public to stifle discussion on-wiki. Really, considering your involvement in the site, I don't understand why you don't make comments there trying to stop this sort of thing? Criticism is one thing, harrassment is something completely different. Silverseren^C 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• One link to consider: Streisand effect. OK, 2 links: WP:BEANS IJS — Ched :  ?  05:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's why I didn't link anything and did my best to minimize what I said. We can't keep using WP:BEANS as an excuse to not have a conversation, because it lets this sort of harrassment continue. Silverseren^C 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I will also say that I personally know of at least two users that have been on-wiki harassed and impersonated due to their opposition to the POV of the users at the forum topic in question. That's unacceptable. Period. And Silver seren is right. We cannot just say "bah bah bah no conversation WP:BEANS". It's already out, it's already been Streisand'ed at the ArbCom case, so now's the perfect time to talk further while we can without spilling more beans. gwickwire^talk_editing 05:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• As best I can tell the "outing" Seren is talking about involves Vigilant noting what editors have publicly disclosed on their own userpages. That is not outing. People really need to look up what these terms mean before they start using them. None of the "outed" editors, including the one that sparked this whole kerfuffle in the first place were actually "outed" in any sense of the term. No one revealed private information, but instead noted public information. When it comes to one of the editors being a minor, that wasn't made apparent that I know except by those raising the issue and WO moderators have, all the same, removed those posts from public view because of those concerns. So there is basically no point in bringing this up.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's why I said outing/doxing. Outing is the common term here, but the more appropriate term would be doxing, which is "technique of tracing someone or gather information about an individual using sources on the internet", according to Urban Dictionary. The point is to gather as many scraps about a person on the internet as possible, including real name, address, and phone number. Vigilant was doing this in order to threaten editors on-wiki so that they would stop contributing to the discussion. This needs to stop and needs to be dealt with. Along with DC, you, being a member of the site, should have told them to knock it off. Silverseren^C 07:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Exploiting information about children is not a nice thing to do, but whilst I saw the information posted it was not clear that the person was a child. However, Seren you are a fine one to complain being as you have added information about children to this site, and has participated in discussions to ensure that such information remained on this site. I don't think y'all can have it both ways by writing articles and adding personal information about children here and then complain when some one does the same on another site.

As for the chilling effects complaint above, well I've often seen arguments here with regards to minor celebrities, such as small time radio hosts. that if they didn't want their public information spread about the internet they shouldn't do the job that they do. Which is a pretty chilling effect is it not? So I think that if you are participating in the top 5 website then you are all as equally as important as a minor local radio host. So whilst I don't agree with targeting children, if you have children here then you'd better protect them better, and make sure that they are instructed on how to protect their personal information on the internet. I note that unlike this site the WO site removed the personal information about the child. John lilburne (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"added information about children to this site, and has participated in discussions to ensure that such information remained on this site" ??? I actually have no idea what you're talking about. I've participated in discussions about the CHILDPROTECT policy, yes, since I don't feel it actually does anything to protect children, but I don't see what that has to do with what you said. I assume you're talking about some article i've edited, but I don't know at all which one you're referring to.

The chilling effects of adding someone's birthyear? I think if that's all the doxing that was being done on people here, no one would care. And it's ridiculous to compare the writing of an encyclopedia article to the malicious gathering of information to threaten someone.

Though it is nice to have all the Wikipediocracy people coming out to join the show. Three already! Gotta keep up with making sure there's freedom of harassment, huh? Silverseren^C 08:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Were you not involved in writing an article about some kid who made a YouTube video? An article that was later used as a vehicle to spread rumours across the internet that she was pregnant.

In any case there was no reason for the child to be on an ArbCom page about the indeffing of a prolific editor, and the desysopping of an administrator. No reason for them to be sticking their oar into something they knew very little about. If they want to play adult games they should expect to be treated as an adult.

The fact is that there are articles all over this site about kids, including shit about where they screw up. If this site is maintaining that and defending keeping such information, I fail to see why those that are participating on this site, particularly on the dramah pages, shouldn't be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. John lilburne (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I have absolutely no idea what person you're talking about. Can you just tell me what article?

Are you seriously attempting to justify the doxing of a minor by saying that they shouldn't be commenting in a Wikipedia discussion? And that, by doing so, they should be "treated as an adult", which apparently means being doxed?

Again, there is a huge difference between having encyclopedic articles on children who were made famous in a positive sense (Connie Talbot) or a negative sense (Rebecca Black) and doxing children so you can use that information to threaten them. Really, it has nothing to do with children at that point. Doxing someone so you can threaten them is already completely wrong. Silverseren^C 10:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You do realise the info about that editor being a child wasnt actually on Wikipedia until you and Demi started going on about it? I dont know what you think you are accomplishing here, but at the moment you are far more effectively bringing attention to an editor being a minor than anyone at WO ever did. If that was your intent, well done! Also you misunderstand the basic principle of what outing is. On WP outing is per the outing policy and very specific - it refers to info that has not been previously released on wikipedia. Outside wikipedia its less specific and in line with 'doxing' - which is private info someone has not made public. Revealing info that someone HAS made public and freely posted on the internet, but they havnt linked to a specific identity they are using is a grey area. The general rule of thumb being 'If you dont want people to know stuff about you, dont post that stuff on the internet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the definitions, but I don't see what that has to do with gathering information, public or private, and using it to threaten an editor so that they will stop being involved in an on-wiki discussion. Silverseren^C 10:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because you say it is 'encyclopedic' does not make it so, mostly it is gossip, prurience, and tittle-tattle. I have no sympathy. Someone that enter the drama boards and pontificates should expect comeback. John lilburne (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article? Nothing? Gonna ignore that part? Okay, moving on. Those two articles I linked are rather extensive on how they discuss the accomplishments of the children in question. I don't see what that has to do with gossip and such.

And, I guess yes, you were saying that someone who comments on a noticeboard should get doxed and threatened. Good to know. Silverseren^C 10:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd already linked to the article so no point in me doing so too. How is the posting the real name of someone threatening them? It does no such thing. John lilburne (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As the very first section of WP:HARASS says: "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Prioryman (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would it make someone feel threatened or intimidated? Just because ones neighbours knows ones name and address doesn't make one feel threatened at all. John lilburne (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Really, John, this is disingenuous. As I said at Wikipedia talk:Harassment a few days ago, "it's a way of saying "I know who you are and I know where you live/work", with the unspoken implication that the harasser will try to mess with your real-world life, job, relationships etc. Even if the harasser doesn't engage in offline harassment himself, he is advertising the information that a malicious or unhinged individual needs to go after someone." People on Wikipediocracy are not "neighbours", quite a few of them are aggressive and malicious trolls with a track record of abusive behaviour (which is why they are banned here, after all). Prioryman (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What you describe is a generic problem with anonymous contributor websites, it is a problem with the internet in general. If you can't deal with that then to put it plainly your computer has an off switch. This site is posited on drama and conflict, everywhere one looks there is a battle being waged, you can see it everyday on this board, you have pushed, prodded and brought the troops onto the field of conflict yourself (see YRC). That there may be come backs for participating in the drama is a fact of life. Each person has the option to either live with it or not to get involved with it. So what I'm saying is that what goes around comes around live with it. John lilburne (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My first experience with WR was when some producer guy was gunning for your dox in order to set his fan base on you with early morning abusive phone calls. Why he was pissed with you I've no idea and don't greatly care. What I did think and say was that he was wrong to single you out for special attention and should really be directing his ire towards the WMF. What I hadn't realized at that time was the malicious and obnoxious behaviour that some editors here have towards the article subjects, and that the behaviour is ingrained with site's community ethos. Sauce for the goose as the saying goes. John lilburne (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What exact action do you think can be taken with regards to external sites? Even if you could somehow ban Wikipedians from using them (extremely dubious) how would you enforce it? I could go create account Tom Bombadil, how would you know it's me or not? Alternatively, I could create account Other Wikipedian, imitiate a users's style and then post some crap to get them in hot water here.

AC Case has 708 watchers, and AC noticeboard has 650 and here there are 3,658. Great publicity for WO. NE Ent 11:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This came up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Specifically, the ArbCom made the following finding:

Participation on non-Wikipedia websites

7) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or forums critical of Wikipedia or its contributors, is in most cases not subject to Wikipedia's norms and policies, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Where such circumstances do exist, however, appropriate action including sanctions can be undertaken by either the community or by the Arbitration Committee. [65]

ArbCom found that one editor, User:Michaeldsuarez, had "created an article on an external website, which may reasonably be considered harassment of Fæ."[66] Michaeldsuarez was indefinitely banned as a result. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Conduct outside Wikipedia. These two cases set an important precedent: that if a Wikipedian engages in external harassment of another Wikipedian, they can be sanctioned on-wiki. What isn't clear yet is how far exactly this responsibility goes. For example, a thread on Wikipediocracy outing an editor was started by a Wikipedian who is currently "in good standing". Other Wikipedians who are also Wikipediocracy members have participated in this thread. A Wikipedia oversighter has actively moderated this thread. In other words, the first editor has initiated harassment, the other editors have participated in the harassment and the oversighter has facilitated the harassment. Which if any of these should face sanctions? This is the kind of question that ArbCom needs to resolve. Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Time for Alison to resign?

I note that User:Alison is a moderator on Wikipediocracy. She is also an administrator, oversighter and checkuser on Wikipedia. She's actively moderated the thread that SilverSeren mentions, meaning that she's simultaneously overseeing outing on Wikipediocracy - which she has the power to stop, but hasn't - while mitigating it on Wikipedia. It's as if she's wearing a black hat and a white hat simultaneously (imagine a Visa employee moderating a credit card fraud forum). I can't see how she can possibly ethically act in both roles; surely she has to choose between them. I and others have asked her about this on her user talk page but haven't received a satisfactory response (and in fact she has ignored most of the discussion). I'm seriously considering raising this with the ArbCom, as I simply can't see how being an oversighter and being an active Wikipediocracy moderator can be reconciled ethically, given Wikipediocracy's repeated and malicious violations of privacy. Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

[67] --Surturz (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So there's already a prior example of this being an issue and then dealt with. Huh, never knew about that one. Silverseren^C 10:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really, that's not the same thing. Everyking used his admin permissions on Wikipedia to obtain deleted material and then posted about it off-wiki. Alison hasn't done anything remotely like that and I doubt she ever would. This is more about whether her role here and her role there are ethically compatible. Prioryman (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask user:Alison to rerun at RFA, to see if the community still has faith, rather than asking user:Alison to resign outright. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but given the level of drama that this business has entailed I'd be more inclined to ask ArbCom to look at the issue. I think we can do without another community meltdown. Prioryman (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well GO TO ARBCOM then, stop saying 'I might take it to arbcom, inclined to ask arbcom' blah blah blah. As a filer of a case your background regarding privacy and abuse thereof under your current and past usernames will also come to light, so I am sure a large number of editors in good standing would be delighted to have you file a case there. They would line up to help you fill in the form Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipediocracy to "a credit card fraud forum" is absurd hyperbole. By the way, I simply can't see how your complaining about that site and being a Wikipedia editor can be reconciled ethically, given Wikipedia editors' repeated and malicious violations of privacy, posts of hate speech and libel, PR-motivated whitewashing of facts, and financially-motivated editing. — Hex (❝?!❞)  FREE KEVIN  11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree! That's why many Wikipediocracy contributors are banned from Wikipedia, as they've been guilty of repeated and malicious violations of privacy, posts of hate speech and libel, PR-motivated whitewashing of facts, and financially-motivated editing. It's not so much a BADSITE as a site used by BADPEOPLE. Prioryman (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And the same arguments can be aimed at Wikimedia Commons and WMUK. Perhaps you should start there? How many of your friends at WMUK are engaged in the above activities? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just open the arbcom case. Alison commented on several previous occasions that she does not see any problems in being a checkuser and oversighter here and one of the founders there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I cannot say that I agree with how things are run over on WO and with that I perceive to be the cavalier attitude toward people's privacy and while I believe the attitude on the matter from the Moderators team (which includes Alison and other wikimedian(s)) is incompatible with being a productive member of the English Wikipedia community entrusted with advanced permissions, that is a private matter for them to consider, not for us to debate, and has nothing to do with the Administrators' noticeboard. I think it would be more productive if you put the question to Alison directly on her talk page, and discuss whatever you feel should be discussed there. There's not really much for us to comment or act on, I feel. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I believe the arbcom has the authority to decide on the matter, but in any case this discussion here is a waste of time. The problem has been stated, I do not see anything else here to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I wasn't making any comment on that, but this isn't the arbcom case page either :) There's really nothing for us to look at, discuss or act on, I think and hence this should be moved to some other forum. I was merely providing the suggestion of one that could be productive and appropriate. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Right.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2013 (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.

Personal attacks via email

I have run across a user who has made personal attacks via email, normally I would just throw a npa template with a link to the diff on the talk page however I cannot publicly do so with emails. This user is a relativity new user also. Suggestions on how I should proceed? Werieth (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just mark the emails as spam! --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Contact the people at WP:OTRS and provide them with the information. If they find that someone is abusing the Wikipedia email function, they will block that ability. — Ched :  ?  06:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This may stem from a confusion of the "OTRS email response team" and "Wikipedia email". OTRS team members have no special ability to snoop on emails sent via Wikipedia. We just have access to the inboxes of various Foundation addresses. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, that isn't something OTRS can handle. OTRS handles general questions and inquiries from the public as well as permissions issues for files and text. Legoktm (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If there's no question over the authorship of the emails, and the attacks aren't hugely serious warn them directly about this conduct on their talk page. If the emails are highly problematic or this continues, block them and turn off the ability to send email. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This actually occurred to me last year. There was a legal threat involved so I copied the entire e-mail, time stamp and all and sent them all to an Administrator. The user was blocked and eventually the entire account was deleted as Spam/promotional etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Topic (article) ban

Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• article protection log
• GeorgeLouis’s article edit history showing 280 edits or 21% of the total edits to the article
• Rhode Island Red’s article edit history showing 456 edits or 35% of the total edits to the article
• RFC about RIR closed with no consensus
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• There are more edit-warring reports, but I got tired of listing them all.
• ANI discussion about VanderSloot
• ANI discussion about VanderSloot
• BLPN discussion
• BLPN discussion
• BLPN discussion
• There are more BLPN discussions, but I got tired of listing them all.

I propose a topic ban on Frank L. VanderSloot‎ for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red based on the history above, which may not be complete. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of my 5 edits to the article and a couple of edits to the talk page last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposing to ban me based on a few old retributive edit warring reports (baseless reports filed by George Louis that led to nothing) and a failed witch-hunt RfC (filed by George Louis that led to nothing) in the absence of a compelling reason or a recent incident? I have to question your motives for filing this. I suspect a pre-emptive measure aimed at derailing my request to go to ArbCom to resolve the POV pushing by editors who appear to have a vested interest in the subject matter. Looks like you're picking up the torch and launching yet another ill-conceived witch-hunt (of course I am in no way defending George Louis and won't obstruct your efforts to ban him). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Wikipedia resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?

1. the article was locked as recently as February 13.
2. your last edit to the article was a revert of GeorgeLouis on February 23 (preceded by edit-warring between the two of you).
3. the last edit-warring report was on January 31 brought by you against GeorgeLouis (with this lovely opening salvo: "We’ve been having a chronic problem with GeorgeLouis over at the Frank Vandersloot page. Over the last couple of days (and over the past 8 months or so), the editor has made repeated attempts to blank reliably-sourced content from the article against consensus.").
4. the last ANI discussion was in the middle of February.
5. the last BLPN discussion was on January 21.

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the evidence you presented falls on my shoulders nor does it remotely justify calling for a page ban against me. So what if I made an edit on Feb 13. It was a legitimate edit. The page wasn't locked because of me. The ANI was to resolve an editing dispute -- had nothing to do with my conduct. Yes, I filed an edit warring report against George and it was deemed that he was edit warring; how can you possibly try to twist that as evidence of misconduct on my part? That's ridiculous. Your blood lust is baseless. No admin would be foolish enough to not see through your paper thin premise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support for RIR, waiting for comments from George before !voting on him. I think RIR's comments here are representative of his inability to recognize the results of his actions. Arkon (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that because I challenged the charge and the evidence presented, that's evidence that the charge is legitimate? What kind of ridiculous circular logic is that? 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support: I have felt on many occasions that this discussion is basically endless, and that any solution cannot be achieve without some kind of legitimate fork in the road we are all forced to follow. Ban everybody involved on all sides unless we can collaborate. I was deeply disappointed by the recent reversal of administrative decisiveness on this page purely because two editors on the losing side decided to make a fuss. This whole situation has made me lose faith in Wikipedia's ability to protect living people and deflect political bias. Makes me want to stick to artist only, and science pages and forget the entire side of Wikipedia dealing with businesses and businessmen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeeremy, you have been very much involved at the core of several of the editing disputes. This might seem like convenient opportunity to take out the opposition with an unjustified page ban, but it won't work. It's shameful that you would even try such an underhanded tactic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply responding to the recommendation of another individual. If they felt I was a part of the problem too, I would go along with any request to pause, rewind, or move forward in a different method myself. I know that you have good intentions on Wikipedia and I do not doubt that at all, I in fact very much admire the pages you've chosen to take on, but I also think the intention of this proposal is constructive as well. I have tried to be constructive in all items I have posted regarding these situations. But how many hours of other people's time is this project going to continue to take? I think we can trust that the Wikipedia community at large is capable of handling this page effectively if we all left it alone.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support for RIR. Opinion reserved on GeorgeLouis pending a response. I followed the last several ANI's revolving around article and decided against commenting. This is a ultimately necessary step to stop the endless unconstructive bickering at that article. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's silly. Bickering is not a basis for calling for a page ban. Nor is the so called "bickering" confined to me and George; you seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that multiple parties have been involved, and yet you are trying to make it seem as though it's all somehow my fault that multiple parties are in disagreement. I've been saying for quite some time that the article and the actions of various POV pushers should go before ArbCom for resolution. My impression is that there are some ardent advocates of Vandersloot and Melaleuca who don't want that to happen, for fear of that the decision would not rule in their favor. This is a silly witch-hunt; nothing more. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment.You got the wrong guy, officer, but thanks for posting this link to my edits. It shows clearly that I've made beaucoup recent edits on such controversial subjects as "Copy edit," "More copy edit," "Comma to set off appositive," "Impersonal, not personal pronoun," "Spell out approximate number," "Correct small number per MOS. Hyphens in 9-1/2 and in second-largest. Comma in compound sentence" and "Changing % to percent for concistency." Then there was the landmark "Correct capitalization," which amended the name of Vandersloot to the correct form VanderSloot (thirteen times!), which had been in the article — I don't know — maybe forever? We also have several instances of "Adding In Use Tag" and "Removing In Use Tag," not to mention "Link is now dead," "Adding a link that does not require payment," "Reverting self. Have to do more checking" and "Explaining what the Inc. 500 list is." Thanks again: It was fun going over my past edits in this one article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose RIR, leaning Support for GL; @GL, a couple of your "copyedits" were substantive, and a number of your substantive edits are wrong. A majority of your edits this year were removing material added by RIR or adding material removed by RIR, whether or not you were specifically reverting his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Wikipedia's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't the words I'm talking about, obviously. And no one is calling your "edit count ... malfeasance". I'm talking specifically about you discounting the efforts of others, and blowing your own efforts out of proportion. That aside, I'm surprised that you insist that there is no hostility whatsoever to your words, perhaps you should recheck your phrasing before posting. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to make light of this WP:ANI because I know how annoying it can be when confronted by what seems to be endless dispute in WP articles. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that I have been active in developing new Talk Page sections when requested, by RIR or by other editors, all with an eye to settling disagreements. Granted, because these are Talk Page changes, they may not have been included in the very comprehensive list of diffs submitted above by User:Bbb23.

• Wife contribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=528829649&oldid=528825896

• Add a subheader for ease of comprehension and editing; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=527573603&oldid=527573383

• Adding a marketing subsection entitled "Inverted pyramid vs. chronological

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=525083077&oldid=525079257

• Adding a new section on the Direct Selling Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=524652084&oldid=524647718

• Making subheaders for ease of editing and of comprehension. Hiding some off-topic comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

• Idaho ballot initiatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

• New subheaders in Talk section, "Consensus" for ease of comprehension

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537308982&oldid=537307545

• Making additional subheaders so each editor would have his or her own subsection instead of having to share:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=536849148&oldid=536836231

GeorgeLouis (talk)

To get this discussion off dead center, I don't mind taking a four-week break from editing (I did this for some two weeks last December), so that others could improve the article. but I think the project would benefit from whatever I post on the Talk Page, even if it's just advice about correcting a spelling error.GeorgeLouis (talk)

• Oppose topic-banning either RIR or GL. Having watched the VanderSloot shenanigans for some time now, it seems to me that RIR is the most valuable contributor in terms of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article, and GL is prominent among users whose resistance to policy-compliant, reliably sourced content makes it hard not to wonder about agendas and motivations. I note, and agree with, Arthur Rubin's comments on GL's edits. Yet I don't think topic-banning GL would be helpful without also including the others who together form, whether by accident or design, a united front against content they apparently don't like. Might there be a mature, neutral, policy-savvy admin who has the balls to mediate the content disputes on the talk page? Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Writegeist has an excellent point! If we can get that kind of administrative support on the page ... can we? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment -- I get the sense that a topic ban per se isn't going to get sufficient support here to be adopted. To plant a seed for future consideration: what might help avoid disruption here is to impose a restriction on use of noticeboards w/rt this article: a prohibition on initiating a discussion at any noticeboard, and a prohibition on contributing more than twice (with each contribution <75 words) at any single discussion initiated by anyone else. Tweak the details, whatever, but the point is to restrict the drama to the article talk page and spare the larger number of people who participate at the noticeboards. Again, for future consideration perhaps -- and since I've been involved at the article myself, feel free to discount the entire suggestion on that basis alone if you like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I never discount anything you say. Although an interesting suggestion, I fear it would be almost impossible to implement. It would be almost like saying anyone can do whatever they please on the article, and no one can seek sanctions or even input about editors' actions. I suppose you could craft something that might be doable, but it would no doubt have to be an extended use of wikilegalese.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I meant it to apply only to the two editors in question here. The point is, there's enough attention on the page that if a genuine problem arises with one or the other someone is likely to raise it at a noticeboard -- but we wouldn't have to worry about frivolous or retaliatory reports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban on all "health products" related pages Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is. GL is not involved in that larger area, but RIR appears to be a strong SPA in that area. Collect (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Contributors to discussions of this sort really ought to indicate whether they have been involved at the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My last edit was removal of a blatant copyvio -- which RIR then reverted. [68]. AFAICT, using the exact words of a source without using quotes is a copyvio. And your point is? Ah -- that you also edit the article? I would point out that I noted the first RfC/U in which I made zero edits about articles in which I made zero edits. The fact is that RIR appears to have a strong interest in the topic I mentioned in which I have zero interest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In regard to Collect's statement above, RIR has indeed been quite active in other WP articles about companies that sell health-related products.

1. One of them was Juice Plus (in 2009). See these interchanges at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive204#Block_review_on_User:Jackie_JP and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Vicious_Personal_Attacks_by_Dubbawubba_.28moved_from_WQA.29. A check user request was denied in a matter involving this article, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rhode_Island_Red. A WP:Civility accusation was handled at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rhode_Island_Red.
2. RIR was also involved in editing USANA Health Sciences ("a Utah-based multilevel marketing company that produces various nutritional and skin-care products") and was involved in a WP:3RR complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User:Rhode_Island_Red_reported_by_User:Leef5_.28Result:_article_protected.29. Other activity is here and here, where on 8 September 2012 he insisted on adding the phrase multi-level marketing to the article in much the same way he has in the VanderSloot piece. He made a similar change to that article as recently as 8 February 2013, with the Edit Summary "It is an MLM and the primary term is MLM, not 'network marketing.' "
3. Rhode Island Red also submitted a fulsome notice regarding Amway at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Improper_synthesis_and_paraphasring_of_sources_on_Amway) on 14 May 2011.

I agree in advance that RIR may not have been alone in his wrongdoings anent those articles, but am submitting these links to support Collect's statement that RIR has had a history of heavy editing of health-related products. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re. Collect's 'Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is.' Hm. That RfC/U was way back in 2007: Comprehensive, detailed defence presented by RIR; numerous comments in his support; specious SPA allegation totally discredited; result: 'User agreed to take a break from editing the article' following another user's suggestion that he 'take a break from this article. Not as punishment, and not as an admission or acknowledgement that she has done anything wrong at all, but simply to gain experience in other articles and to take a break from this one.' (Emphasis added.) RIR then took a week's break. A six year-old RfC which ended without any critical result, action, punishment or requirement to acknowledge any wrongdoing at all is no more relevant here than Collect's own four year-old RfC/U alleging 'Collect is a tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and gaming the system/using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith.' (Result: 'User warned and restricted.')

On the face of it, RIR's Nov 2012 RfC/U might have more relevance, for being as recent as three months ago: Allegations: 'Civility [oh please], misuse of edit summaries [e.g. 'please stop removing reliable sources and don't edit war'—dangnabbit, the sonofabitch made a polite request! Off with his summaries!], soapboxing [specious allegation, citing a lone and patently non-soapboxy post [[69]], biting the newcomers [another utterly specious allegation from GeorgeLouis—not least because the "newcomer" in question had already been on WP for over three years]. Result: 'No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration,' And wait a minute, I'm trying to remember who were the certifiers who staged this farce . . . ah yes! None other than GeorgeLouis and Collect (the latter providing copious hot air and absolutely no diffs as 'evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute'). Their efforts to blame, shame and drive off RIR, viewed in the wider context of the concerted, long-running and futile campaign they have conducted against RIR across the VS talk pages and the drama boards, may be taken with a rather large pinch of salt. Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Deal with what I write - now with what you wish. An RfC/U which was orchestrated by a banned user and votestacked with 14 people (including sock masters) from four years ago about an editor who is not being discussed here, is not of much import here. Is there any actual reason why you choose this moment to attack me personally?

[70] shows your exceedingly apparent anti-Mormon bigotry from the start.

Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements.

As does [71]

Adding comments and edit summaries that stir shit-storms in teacups is routine for users whose history shows a marked tendency to misrepresent others' comments. As a strategy to discredit others it is doomed to failure (yet its practitioners endlessly repeat the same strategy in the hope of a different outcome). Rather, it tends to discredit the shit stirrer. For example: suppose user A comments at the talk page of a BLP on Dick Head, a notable member of the polygamous Church of MoreYoni, that Dick, his current wife and his ex-wife all appear to reside at the same address; and suppose user A comments further that "MoreYonis have such cosy domestic arrangements." User B, who cannot see a wikiteacup without trying to stir a storm in it, deletes the comments and harrumphs about "blatant religious bigotry" in the edit summary. It's clearly a fatuous accusation, so why make it? Groundless accusations are often projections. If other users now check B's edit history and see that his contributions routinely convey an "obstinate or intolerant devotion to his own opinions and prejudices"--the very stuff of bigotry--the full extent of the irony will be evident to all.

Is quite sufficient evidence of one editor's animus to a specific religion, denigration of those who are members of that religion (unless one can not userstand what MoreYoni is, of course), and then pops here -- discussing an article ... about a member of that religion. And attacking everyone in his path <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Collect, your taking blind pot shots, that have nothing to do with this thread, at Writegeist is further evidence of the inanity of this ban request thread. It's not going to go anywhere and it's not going to resolve any conflicts. I have on numerous occasions proposed ArbCom as the best and most resolute way to put and end to the animosity once and for all. If the disputants are truly acting in good faith, they should all relish the opportunity to present their case before ArbCom. However, I get the impression that you and George are resisting this option because you are assuming (correctly I would guess) that you wouldn't fare well, and that makes whining on the drama-boards a much more appealing option. I implore you, if you are serious about achieving resolution, accept this invitation to take the matter to ArbCom. If you're not, then piping down would be the appropriate course of action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist he comment Writegeist made was his edit at the VanderSloot article talk page - I fail to see how closer it could be to being relevant to a discussion about the VanderSloot article! Yet you think an edit at VanderSloot which is clearly bigotted has "nothing to do" with VanderSloot? How quaint! My edit here, moreover, was to note that you seem preoccupied with healt foods - which I would think is obvious from simply looking at your small number of articles unrelated thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not content with misrepresentation, 'one editor' has progressed to a rank lie. I challenge 'one editor' to provide a diff of the alleged 'MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" comment at the VanderSloot article talk page. I have made absolutely no comment there containing any, let alone all, of those words. Put up or shut up. Writegeist (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Re. 'One editor' 's comments (lulz!). His reply to me has expelled enough hot air for a balloon ride over the Himalayas. One day 'one editor' might try stirring tea in a teacup for a change. (The choices are practically endless. Relaxing chamomile, for example, is thought to combat overstimulation, spasms and flatulence.) I note 'one editor' apoplectically objects to my mention of his RfC/U (which led to findings of EW, TE, DE, 'answering worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors', legal threats, wikilawyering, abusing sourcing policy and unevenly applying it to his own outlook and PoV, and making accusations without taking steps to find proof; which in turn led to his being warned and restricted), but conveniently misrepresents my comments by omission of their key point—namely the fact that, as I made crystal clear, I raised his RfC only to say that, despite it being more recent and having a much more serious outcome, it's as irrelevant here as his mention of RIR's, which led to neither warnings nor restrictions. 'One editor' objects that his RfC/U was not being discussed here until my comments alluded to it. Yet I cannot find any objection from him (did I miss it?) to his own comments when he resurrects RIR's much more ancient RfC, an episode which, until "one editor" mentioned it, was also not being discussed—for the simple reason that it, too, is irrelevant here.

The sad fact is that 'one editor' and GeorgeLouis et al. repeatedly pile on at the talk pages and drama boards in their vexatious attempts—always unsuccessful—to shut down RIR. It's time they stopped. RIR's resilience to the bullying thus far is highly commendable. A more timid soul would have been run off by now. His suggestion to put up at Arbcom or abandon the campaign altogether seems well-intended and worthy of consideration. Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-evident bigotry is hard to excuse. And calling a person a Dick Head, a MoreYon and a polygamist clearly passes the smell test. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

MoreYoni. Not MoreYon (which has an altogether different sound and a derogatory implication—as of course 'one editor' knows, and which is why he wrote it.) Oh well, MoreMisrepresentation from 'one editor' is no surprise. It's a widely remarked stock-in-trade of 'one editor's' tendentious style of debate. Smell test? It stinks. Writegeist (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And it remains a bigotted remark of the first water. And as I quoted your precise post above, I think you are now on fairly thin ice. (see Moroni]) Collect (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your idea of precision is, shall we say, idiosyncratic. Persisting in a lie does not make it the truth, and it does nothing to serve your cause here. Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave your exact talk page post with the exact diff where you made the exact post: Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements. I take it you find making fun of religions and asserting that the "domestic arrangements" are "cosy" is somehow not as bigotted as others may see it? Collect (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You have commented here that I made an edit using the words "MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" at the VanderSloot talk page. This is one lie. Another lie is that you have given a supporting diff. How many more toi come, Collect? Writegeist (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, for both. Clearly the article is not moving forward; there is way too much history and disruption here caused and furthered by these two editors. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly??? That's simply false. The article has in fact moved forward but not without considerable pain. What exactly does "too much history" mean. Seriously, at this point in the game we all need to be specific and not toss out vague straw man arguments. It's true that there has been "disruption" but it's quite inappropriate to pretend that I am somehow the root cause of the disruption; the assertion simply ignores the facts (and that multiple editors have been involved on both sides of the conflicts). I'll point out, once again, that I have repeatedly requested that we take this matter to ArbCom for greater scrutiny and a definitive resolution but the "other side" has cowered from the invitation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but I don't remember ever seeing someone balk at the prospect myself reviewing the talk pages. Do you have specific links to where editors have specifically said that was a bad idea, other than Lord Roem who warned against its possible outcomes on all sides? Beyond this I can't think of a specific example where anyone has "cowered" (kind of a strong word), I just think most people haven't had enough interest in the idea to discuss it. I could be wrong of course, but do you have examples? Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As you are already well aware, given that you have long followed the discussion threads, I have on at least half a dozen occasions strongly advised taking this matter to ArbCom. None of the combatants (i.e. the Vandersloot/Melaleuca advocates) on the article have even acknowledged let alone accepted the offer. Hence, I don't need to present any additional evidence that "your side" has cowered form the opportunity to resolve this through ArbCom. Instead, the preferred tactic has been to make sneaky attempts to work around that and hamstring me, such as filing baseless 3RR complaints, a pointless RfC (which you were involved in), and now this current witch-hunt. I think it's pretty obvious why these Melaleuca/Vandersloot advocates would try to roll the dice on a last ditch ploy like this one instead of opting for a process that would bring scrutiny to all involved parties, themselves included, and a long-lasting reasoned conclusion. So once again, I repeat the challenge. If there are any involved editors that still have a problem with the article's content, or user conduct, then let's go to ArbCom for final resolution. Show good faith and sincerity by accepting the offer. If they they aren't willing to do it, then there is no excuse for a resumption of edit warring and frivolous drama-board complaints. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't have a "side" :) I'm certain that you don't either as Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view, which should be somewhat universal, no? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That comment was so light on substance I don't even know how to respond other than to point out that: (a) it could easily be argued, based on your past contribution with respect to Vandersloot, that you do have a side, and quite a consistent one; (b) the point of my comment was that ArbCom is the logical place to achieve a fair resolution and yet no one on your "side" has shown any interest whatsoever in pursuing this option, favoring instead malicious drama board complaints and ad hominem attacks that get us nowhere. Clear now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't have a side :) As far as I'm concerned, the civility issue is the only thing I feel strongly about. The rest of the issues appear to be falling by the wayside with our continued efforts, although more slowly due to said lack of civility and cooperation--something that threatens all progress. So ending incivility or eliminating those who cannot bring themselves to be civil would be immensely helpful here, thus my initial comment. Again, one should not have a non-objective point of view on Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you not notice that this thread has nothing to do with civility issues? GeorgeLouis tried that tack already, launching a witch-hunt RfC that you participated in. The conclusion was that civility wasn't the issue but rather content disputes and POV pushing; and ArbCom was recommended. So what you're pining for is to take a step backwards -- clearly not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So you find civility unimportant? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Arbcom was not recommended by anyone but you at the RFC, and POV pushing was not concluded whatsoever. The conclusion of the RFC was that you had tried to become more civil, but that does not mean future incivility will be ignored. My opinion is that incivility is the root of the problems on the Vandersloot page, including a lack of respect for the opinions of others. I also see it as the root of the recommendation being discussed here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red. Do you need support from other parties to file a request for arbitration? I am not very familiar with the arbitration process, but my impression is that people definitely get dragged to the ArbCom against their will. Also, as I get the impression that your primary goal of an ArbCom process, is to get an exposé of some COI issues you suspect are present; have you considered bringing it to the COI noticeboard first? - As for me, I wouldn´t necessarily oppose an ArbCom process, due in large part to the toxic climate between users that I find that the VdS and maybe related articles generate. (As on display in many of the comments above). Regardless of what might be true about the COI issues, I find this super-aggressive and contemptuous atmosphere to be a problem in itself, detrimental to the cause of Wikipedia, which is building an encyclopedia in a constructive cooperation. An important part of an ArbCom case, imo, would thus be to restore some basic civility and a minimum of respect between involved users. (I partly tend to think of Wikipedia as a workplace, and if Wikipedia were a real-life workplace in Norway, I believe the labour inspection authorities would have demanded that something was done to better the workplace environment.) With regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, although I can't speak with any authority for all countries, I venture a guess that if Wikipedia were a "real-life workplace" in almost any country, a good deal of what goes on here wouldn't be tolerated. But that's apparently the price you pay for a virtual anarchistic democratic bureaucracy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a multitude of issues to be addressed; e.g. POV pushing, tendentious/disruptive editing, sock puppetry, harassment, COI, collusion/tag-teaming, wasting resources/endless debate, etc. No one should have to be dragged to ArbCom at this point; they should go willingly because it's the fairest way to achieve resolution. Those who have issues of any kind can air them before ArbCom secure in the knowledge that the case will be reviewed by the most experienced and impartial WP admins available, free from the contaminating influence of the rabble. It's the logical place to resolve the issues because the drama-boards have, for the most part, magnified the problems. I greatly resent the shifty efforts of a few POV pushers to hamstring me through these relentless backhanded assaults. These actions do not in any way resemble a good faith effort to achieve resolution and harmony; it's simply a case of trying to take out a productive editor who they don't like because their POV pushing is being met with resistance (and not just by me alone but by numerous editors). So there you have it. The invitation still stands, but I doubt know that any of the involved parties will accept it because they are banking on this ad hominem attack to do the trick; knowing full well that they wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance of prevailing in an ArbCom case and that they would then be out of rope. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite page ban for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red from the Frank L. VanderSloot article and Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot talkpage. Conduct by both is poor enough on that article and talk, but I don't currently see any need for a broader topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ohhh I see. So even though this complaint is devoid of evidence, and despite the fact that my conduct on the Vandersloot article has been carefully and routinely scrutinized (due to GeorgeLouis's near weekly complaints on the drama-boards) and I have never been found to be guilty of misconduct, you're suggesting that the outcomes and lack of evidence should be ignored and that I should be banned just for the hell of it? Since when does vigilante justice trump due process on Wikipedia? I'm suggesting that this case go to ArbCom so that a fair decision can be reached without witch-hunters contaminating the process. There's no reason to demand blood and circumvent that the resolution process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to lecture about civility next. Not exactly a shining role model are you?[72] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all editors about Wikihounding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An off topic non sequitur. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe he was talking about editors that insist on responding to every single comment on a page, with the intention of either intimidating them or being dismissive of their opinions. Quite appropriate in this case. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy112233. More to the point: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Could an uninvolved admin close this in whatever way they deem appropriate? Frankly, no matter what the outcome, I prefer a closure to automatic archiving.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I do hope it's noticed that only there are only four editors contributing to this discussion who haven't been involved in the article. (I've made my own involvement clear, as have a couple of others -- but some haven't been as open about it.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

massive suppression on Cla68's talk page

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 notice that every edit made between 06:12, 4 March 2013‎ and 16:29, 5 March 2013‎ on Cla68's talk page have been redacted. As a normal editor I have no ability to determine if the edits were supressed or deleated by administrative means. Given the context surrounding Cla68's talkpage, I suspect it was oversighted under critera one (Removal of non-public personal information). There are ~57 consecutive revisions to the page redacted. The redacted content includes replies by ~9 sysops, including multiple functionaries and members of the arbitration committee. There seems to be a contridiction here. If the users (both administrators and other long-time contributors) were posting non-public personal information all of the users involved should apparently be subject to sanction. If they were not, this appears to be a gross misuse of the the supression tool. If there is a vaild rationale would someone please explain why there was supression but no action taken (even a warning) to the users whos edits were supressed? This was posted to the AN after much thought, as I believe that an action of this nature requires community review. Regards, Crazynas ^t 07:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The last revision deletion was performed on 12:47, 16 August 2012 [73] as such, I must assume this was an act of supression. Crazynas ^t 07:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The way it works is that individual revisions have to be suppressed/revision deleted. So that would include all revisions from the time the material entered the page until it was removed. --Rschen7754 07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What Rschen said - this is the way the software works. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much the way the software works, it's the way oversighters work - in that intermediate revisions also have to be suppressed because they all contain the problematic material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At 16:11, 4 March 2013‎ Fluffernutter made a (currently supressed) edit to the talk page. When searching the page, there is no timestamped signature (by Fluffernutter or otherwise) at that time, since I suspect she knows how to sign her posts, unless she posted something inapproprate why was her post not re-instated on the page (as in fact Cla68's unblock request was, in an redacted form)? (This timestamp was chosen at random, but a sampling shows that none of the edits examined so far have been reinstated). Crazynas ^t 07:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see straight away what got suppressed:

06:12, 4 March 2013‎ Mathsci (talk | contribs)‎ . . (287,581 bytes) (+1,485)‎ . . (→‎More eyes?: copied over from wikipediocracy)

It looks like someone posted a link to the thread on redact that has been the root cause of all this controversy. Unfortunately, removing it from the history has meant that a lot of subsequent posts had to be removed as well - you can't just suppress the original post, you have to suppress every post in which it subsequently appears. Prioryman (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But if those posts do not contain objectionable material they could be copied and reposted by the OS right? Crazynas ^t 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Suppressing the intermediate revisions does not remove the actual contributions, as they are still there in the revision after the last one suppressed. Fluffernutter's comment is still there, tagged "A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)" - there can be a minor time difference between the tagging in the talk page and the record in the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that is a big self trout on that one, although now I'm questioning why we have logs at all if the (sever generated) timestamp and the (sever generated) log don't agree. Crazynas ^t 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The "timestamp" in the talk page is just a piece of text written into the actual page content as part of a signature, and the actual logging can't see that and just logs the time - and that is inevitably a tiny bit later than the talk page content was generated, occasionally spanning a minute boundary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, each individual edit may not contain enough personal information but taken as a whole, it does. I only came upon this after blocking had already occured. It took only about 2 minutes to piece together the website and the user people were talking about. I had heard about neither of them before that. Oversighting of the talk page should have removed all website and all username mentions. Once the decision was made that it was a violation of WP:OUTING, oversighting should have been vigorous and thorough. Previous discussions serve no purpose and future discussions only make it worse. --DHeyward (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• User talk:Cla68 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• The history of the user talk page shows lots of struck-out timestamps, including the four comments that I made. However, the talk page shows my four comments, and they appear to be intact (perhaps they were copy/pasted?). Someone with a suitable paygrade might explain the technical issues involved, but I support the removal of any comments linking to OUTING, despite everyone knowing how to find the outing if they want. The community needs to choose between (a) support for free speech (where editors can post links to show that they can post such links), or (b) support for the WP:OUTING policy. Free speech is great, but that's not our role, whereas the community absolutely must know that all forms of outing are prohibited. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  That's because those comments were still there in the revision after the last suppressed one - suppression does not revert the comments or change the state of the current revision, it just removes the old revisions from the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Something else that might help clarify - it was not the suppression that actually removed the offending material from the talk page, it was the "16:29, 5 March 2013‎ Enric Naval" edit commented as "remove offending link for the same reasons are original links". All the subsequent suppression did was prevent anyone looking at the previous revisions that contained that link - it did not remove anything from the contents of the talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Johnuniq, the problem is the community is not 100% behind 'all forms of outing are prohibited'. Thats not what outing policy says. Its quite specific. Where someone has voluntarily posted info that leads to their identity being disclosed on wikipedia, thats a massive grey area and OUTING is regularly ignored in those circumstances (especially at COIN) And even apart from that, its certainly not cut and dried as to what constitutes outing. Jimbo himself says that posting publically available WHOIS info is not outing. The problem at the moment is that its practically impossible to get a discussion going without it being shut down/oversighted even with the barest of particulars as I have used. I could make a two-word edit to the outing policy that would pretty much completely invalidate any arguments that what Cla did was outing, while leaving the policy intact. Thats how murky it is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. Connecting the dots to out an editor (where they have not revealed the personal information on Wikipedia) is prohibited. Please do not make claims about a named editor such as Jimbo without a link to verify the claim, and to allow the context in which the statement was made to be examined. ANI and many other noticeboards shows numerous examples of editors who misunderstand standard procedures every day, and while disappointing, it is not surprising to find that some editors do not understand that OUTING is OUTING. As an example, if someone were to find a whois record linking my username to my real name, do you really think they should be entitled to post that on Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think the use of whois records is clear cut. For example, we frequently use them to identify the geographical location of IP editors, and that is not treated as a violation of Outing policy as it is obvious public-domain information. But if, for example, you used your Wikipedia username as a domain, and a whois on that domain revealed your real name, I'd expect that to be covered by Outing if you had not disclosed your use of the domain name on-wiki. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • You would need to go through Jimbo's archive to find his quite clear view on publically available WHOIS data. It was regarding a certain problematic high profile banned editor. I wish you luck with that. You missed my point however. I wasnt disputing what OUTING actually currently says, but that its far from clear that certain actions are outing in line with the current wording. If you make no attempt to hide your identity on the internet, then make disruptive actions on wikipedia that directly bring attention and scrutiny to your identity because its linked to the problem, saying that because you have not directly said 'I AM X' on Wikipedia the links cannot be drawn is ridiculous and far from the intent of the outing policy. If a banned editor has openly identified themselves on other publically viewable wikimedia property (Commons, meta, public mailing lists etc) frankly the outing policy as written is not equipped to deal with the issues this causes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry to be a little late to this dramafest and spoil everybody's fun. Unfortunately the oversighting of User talk:Cla68 has a rather boring explanation. In including Cla68's off-wiki response to Newyorkbrad, I gave an external link to his response in a thread on the external website. Enric Naval noticed that going to that off-wiki thread might tempt readers to go elsewhere on that site, where all manner of evil lurks, so redacted the link with a message in which he unfortunately said exactly that. He also added the edit summary mentioned above. He then contacted oversight and then me by email. I then responded to him and wrote also to arbcom-l. I then redacted my message by removing the external link to the response (simply labelled "here") together with Enric Naval's commentary. In my message to arbcom-l (as part of the oversight team) I said they could remove both diffs (I misplaced Cla68's message initially) or just the word "here" with its EL. Given my later redaction, they chose the option all can see now which seems fine to me. Although it's not particularly obvious even now, Enric Naval had stated in his email that Cla68, when unblocked, had drawn attention to external link[s]—possibly meaning my link to his message—on his user talk page. I assume this was discussed by arbitrators and/or oversighters and I certainly haven't had a reply to my post to arbcom-l (note that Roger Davies had changed the settings so that any post from me would go directly onto the list, bypassing the moderator). I should also explain that Enric Naval is a wikifriend of mine. I know that he is not a native English speaker. That is reflected in the slightly odd phrasing and tone of his edit summary that various folks have tried to dissect in gory detail above. Anyway that is what seems to have happened. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I know for a fact that there wasn't anything infringing on policy in my contributions to the discussion on Cla68's talk page. So would someone with oversight permission kindly rescue them from the diffs I can't view - it should be easy enough - and drop them on my talk page. If that's not possible, I'd appreciate knowing why not, as it would strike me as unnecessary collateral damage. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. My preferred option would be for the whole lot to be restored, with as many (Redacted)s as need be, but I'm sure somebody will come up with a reason why that can't be done.

  I don't think anybody has removed any of your contributions - they're all still in the current revision, aren't they? (Suppression does not remove the content - it takes an actual edit/revert to do that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  I wasn't quite sure if the remaining visible text was all of it, what with being unable to view the diffs. Snowolf has pulled them out and it seems I didn't lose anything - thanks Snowolf! (This strikes me as something of a software failing; it should be possible to allow diffs to remain visible, I think, in isolation from the actual page content.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  That wouldn't be good because you'd then still be able to see the genuinely problematic material in the diffs too, which would defeat the purpose of suppression. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  By "diff" I mean the indicator of modified text. Around here the word diff is often incorrectly used (assumed?) to mean "specific version of a page", because diffs are displayed by MediaWiki in tandem with the result of their being applied to a previous page version. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it's the same sort of thing that happens on a fairly regular basis on WP:ANI or here. Intervening edits are affected which explains why they suppressed the diffs (but not the added content) between my initial and final postings. Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2013 (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.

userification please

I requested the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherbourne Street to userify it and its talk page to User:Geo Swan/Sherbourne Street, Suffolk. But they have retired their mop and suggested I ask here. Geo Swan (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not terribly relevant to your request, but Cirt did not "retire the mop", their admin rights were removed by ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not worth restoring, but here's the full text of that article: "Sherbourne Street is a hamlet and a street located inbetween the villages of Edwardstone and Boxford, in the Babergh district of the English County of Suffolk. It is in the Parish of Edwardstone, although it is more like a part of Boxford. The hamlet has a 30 mph speed limit. For transport there is the A1071 road nearby." There was one reference, Philip's Street Atlas Suffolk (page 93). All that wording was by User:Crouch, Swale, the formatting, categories etc. were by other users. Fences&Windows 12:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Hex (❝?!❞)  FREE KEVIN  13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating interwiki links

• In the old system, if a page is moved, it carries its outgoing interwiki links with it, and incoming interwiki links can find it via the redirect that the page move leaves.
  • With the new system of keeping the interwiki links in Wikidata, if I move a page, say from Shrdlu to Cmfwyp, the interwiki link for en:Shrdlu is in Wikidata and its entry there still says "en:Shrdlu". When acting as a link to a Wikipedia page, it finds that page via the redirect left by the move. But when acting as a link from a Wikipedia page, there is nothing telling readers of en:Cmfwyp to look at en:Shrdlu for its interwiki links, and the user must remember to go into Wikidata and edit the interwiki link himself. This is going to cause a lot of extra work when moving Wikipedia pages, and a LOT of broken interwiki links due to people who do not know about going into Wikidata for the interwiki links. Please make it that, when a page is moved, its inter-language link in Wikidata is automatically updated to match. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Moved articles. A bot is now running at Wikidata which reads the move log of each wiki and makes the appropriate fix to Wikidata's records. See the recent contributions of the bot. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete an article I created

Hi, I created this article, while there was a much larger one already. So, there is no need for it any more. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Next time just add {{db-a10|article=existing article title}} to the top of it (✉→BWilkins←✎) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Close an RfC

3 Editors appear to be holding an article hostage by ignoring an RfC which went against them hereTalk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory#Proposal_to_replace_current_content. Can an admin close and summarize the consensus of the RfC so that an edit war is avoided (see Talk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory#Comments)? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note argument is overflowing into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abhidevananda. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Concerns

I have some serious concerns about this AFD and I'm sure admins will quickly see why. More eyes would be good. An early close might be better. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like things are more-or-less under control. I don't see any reason for an early close at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I had privacy concerns about some of it and then there was the obvious (but obviously not bad-faith) off-wiki canvassing. DGG's note should give people enough to discuss to keep things on track for now. But thanks for looking at it - much appreciated. Stalwart111 10:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of a shame that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rotary Club of Milton on Twitter will likely remain a redlink. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... with WP:AFC the way it has been of late, that might actually pass. Ha ha. Stalwart111 06:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Oversight-related blocks

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitration Committee issued a statement noting that blocks based on confidential Checkuser information should not be lifted without consulting a Checkuser who has the ability to review said information. Since that time, this has been incorporated into the blocking policy. While that statement focused primarily on checkuser-based blocks, the Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should not be taking any action when they are unable to make themselves fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block under review. Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; in these situations, administrators are expected to heed this request and not unilaterally remove the block.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Which also means to keep an eye out for {{Oversight_block}} (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88 hounded off Wikipedia

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.

---

Yesterday, Hijiri88, formerly Elvenscout742, announced he was leaving Wikipedia after being told by his employers he could no longer edit during breaks from work. The timing is distressing, as some time ago, now banned editor JoshuSasori threatened Hijiri about editing Wikipedia at work; Joshu was permanently blocked for this, but continues to disrupt Wikipedia with sockpuppets. I post this here to let other admins know what we're dealing with as we continue to handle JoshuSasori.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens... This doesn't look good at all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatting off sideshow. Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See also this, above, and note that Hijiri (Saint?) would be perfectly free to continue editing from home (as in the past) if his roommate would let him. Also note that he claims that he was "hounded constantly by JoshuSasori and Tristan noir" (he apparently earned an interaction ban with the latter), but maybe Tristan feels that he/she is one of those hounded off Wikipedia. To quote Tristan: "I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this edit to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to five separate articles that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed".  LittleBen (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) LBW, this is not an appropriate thread in which to continue your own low-level harassment of Hijiri88. Beware the boomerang... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Stating the other side of the story in a neutral way is surely not low-level harassment. Did you see this, this, or this? LittleBen (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The other side of the story has been stated, repeatedly, in appropriate venues. Posting out-of-context quotes here in a thinly-veiled attempt to recast Hijiri88 as the villain of the piece looks a lot like harassment to me, especially considering the history between yourself and this user. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The other side of the story that had not been stated repeatedly is that he is perfectly free to continue editing from home—it's the other editors, who are topic banned or banned, who are not. He is free to state his side of the story, whereas they are not. Considering that he stalked me for two or three days, making snide comments, suggests that the young lady's(?) comments about stalking are not unfair. AN is not the place for witch hunts or vindictiveness. If he wants a tombstone trophy, let him ask for one himself. LittleBen (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC) AN is not the place for witch hunts or vindictiveness And yet here you are, trying to stick the knife in. Look to yourself sometime. And for heaven's sake, grow up. --Calton | Talk 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC) It's pretty gross to start a new discussion about the subject right after the previous one was closed by an Administrator. LittleBen (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Who unhatted the closed discussion? I know I cocked up by posting something in it (that was a pure mistake), but... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC) [74] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.0.96.220 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC) What's "gross" here is LittleBen's attempt to blame the victim for being harassed at work, and then reopening that unproductive tangent to gravedance some more. And people wonder why it's so hard to retain good editors these days.--Cúchullain t/c 17:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I'll repeat what I said before (albeit in a stupid place): I don't understand HOW anyone can support JoshuSasori's actions at all. Constant wiki-hounding across multiple accounts and IPs is disgusting behaviour. As to the Tristan noir dispute, well, I'm not party to that one, so I can't comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record: Tristan noir was a COI/SPA who only created a Wikipedia account to promote his own book. I was far too nice to him (AFG and all) for the first TWO MONTHS of our dispute, leading him to harass me across about a dozen articles. He has hardly made a single significant contribution to Wikipedia and mostly confine himself to making personal attacks against me on talk pages. I didn't EARN any interaction ban with him, and both myself and I'm pretty sure Yunshui have already explained this to LBW. The IBAN was introduced on my request to keep Tristan noir from hounding me, but then he violated it and I was forced to come back here and get the ban amended. He is now indefinitely banned from interacting with me or making any edits related to Japanese literature. He's not going to post here, because he is also no longer active on Wikipedia -- not because I "harassed" him, but because if he is not allowed post spam promoting his self-published books and the self-published books of his friends, he doesn't think it's worth editing Wikipedia. A glance at Wikipedia: Editing restrictions will back me up here. (I was also encouraged, by Yunshui and others, to avoid "gravedancing" in this case, but since LBW persists in making in ridiculous personal attacks against me, and neither Lukeno no Cuchullain know enough about the Tristan noir incident to set him straight, I think I'm justified in explaining this here.)

Another thing to explain. The reason I am (at least for the time being) refraining from editing at home is thus: JoshuSasori apparently contacted my workplace after Mysterious Island got blocked. My division chief then called me into a "performance review" meeting with my sub-division chief and my supervisor. He asked me if I thought I was doing anything with my office computer that I shouldn't be. Given that JoshuSasori had threatened to do what he did, I knew immediately what he was talking about. I apologized for editing Wikipedia at work and promised to immediately refrain from editing Wikipedia at work. However, given that the edits that made JoshuSasori do this were all made at home, I figured that if I continued editing at all I ran the risk of JoshuSasori contacting my office again and claiming "He's still doing it." Since Japanese local governments who can't fire their employees care more about public image than anything that is actually going on inside the office, this might have meant a blanket ban on viewing Wikipedia anywhere within the municipal office, even if my superiors believed me when I explained to them that I hadn't been editing Wikipedia at work, and that would have severely impinged my ability to actually do my translation work. (Ironic, really.) Three days later, anyway, my division chief took me to the meeting room again and reinforced the earlier ban, telling me definitively that there had been a complaint from outside the office, and told me not to concern myself with who had made it. Apparently, JoshuSasori (or one of his Japanese friends) posed as a concerned taxpayer in the rural municipality I work in, rather than as my Tokyo-based foreign (i.e., non-voting) cyberstalker. I could have explained this to my division chief, but I'm a contract employee on a one-year contract, and in Japan being a foreigner on a work visa and being unemployed for three months gets you kicked out of the country. This is why I am willing to completely abstain from editing Wikipedia not only from my office computer but also under my own username, apart from a single post to explain that I have wikiretired.

I care about my job (and my ability to stay in Japan) approximately eight million times more than I care about Wikipedia.

The reason I am posting this (and the above 0-word comment) under an IP is two-fold. I want to keep any further edits (I don't intend to make any to the article space anyway) off of my current account's record so I have actual proof that my activity on Wikipedia is almost if not entirely non-existent. I might need this if JoshuSasori isn't happy having forced me off Wikipedia, and continues trying to get me fired by haranguing my employers anyway. I might need to demonstrate to them that I haven't been editing Wikipedia. The other reason is that, yes, today is also a working day in Japan, but I have the day off. If I edit anonymously, my IP is proof positive that I am not editing at work.

Lastly, I need to emphasize that, if I hadn't retired from Wikipedia, I would have been saying that I care more about Wikipedia than about my job and my residency status. This would have marked me as an anti-social psychopath. Now, I may or may not care about my activity on Wikipedia more than the jobs of other people I don't know. However, in order to harangue someone's employers because I don't like their edits on Wikipedia, I would need to have an Ed Gein-like complete lack of empathy for my fellow humans. In other words, I would need to be an anti-social psychopath. If LBW continues to claim that it is my fault that JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath after hearing this, he should be indefinitely blocked. In fairness, he is only posting here because he didn't like my stance on diacritics, and preferred JoshuSasori. Even if he does not specifically mention diacritics here, he has been continuing to violate the spirit of his TBAN, because his attacks on me are all obviously diacritic-based.

Goodbye. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatting off sideshow. 219.105.34.145 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyone is free to compare the Edit Count contributions of both editors. Add in the contributions of MI if you want to be fair. You don't consider your trashing of his user page, which seems to have started it, to have been harassment? What about the attack on Jeffrey Woodward? The time-and-date stamp on your edits makes it perfectly clear whether you are editing during office hours or not. Nothing is stopping you from editing outside office hours—or from researching work-related topics on Wikipedia during office hours, if you are allowed to do that. If you want to make claims like "JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath" then you should provide diffs showing that he has had major arguments with editors other than you. Otherwise you had better read WP:NPA. Whether your contract is renewed or not depends on your positive and proactive contributions (or otherwise) at your office rather than on Wikipedia, and certainly not on the banning of JoshuSasori from Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Your raw data is all well and good, but how many of those edits were mindless reversions/vandalisms of Hijiri's work? I'm still not commenting on Tristan, as I haven't witnessed that first hand, but what Joshu has done is flat out WRONG, and no matter WHAT mistakes Hijiri made, there is NEVER any excuse for creating multiple accounts/IP hopping just to fuck up someone's edits, regardless of the story about the office (which I'm inclined to believed, based on what I've seen). The redirecting of the user page was probably wrong, but how is deliberately attempting to ruin someone's life (regardless of the work story, it's not exactly fun being hounded anywhere) with such low tactics justifiable? Take a good look at yourself before condoning it. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I honestly didn't want to comment again, but Lukeno apparently missed the complete insanity of LBW's above accusation that the dispute between me and JS began when I redirected his user page. Check the diff. That page was redirected by JoshuSasori, because he didn't want to respond to my comment. And his edit summary was an extremely vulgar personal attack as well. And this happened less than three days before JS got blocked and about a month after he started harassing me. LBW, of course, already knows that the diff he cited shows JoshuSasori harassing me, and and not the other way round. Asking him to look into it further is pointless, because his latest insane remark shows he has absolutely no interest in quoting the facts even if he knows them. He also has a slightly larger edit count than me, but considering that such a huge proportion of his edits are in the talk space, and the vast majority of those are just tweaking the same dozen or so comments ad infinitum, that doesn't prove anything. Can someone please shut this person up? Also, I'm re-hatting this whole section. Lukeno, if you have something you don't want hatted, you can move it. LBW, please refrain from posting here again, and expecially please don't unhat this sideshow. 219.105.34.145 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tangential discussions rehatted - since LBW's unrelated accusations require no admin action, there is no purpose in leaving them and the related discussions visible. Click the "show" link if you're curious. I can't see that there's anything productive to be gained from continuing this thread; could someone who isn't me please close it for archiving? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Surely repeated unsubstantiated personal attacks like "JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath" require a WP:NPA warning, and should not be hatted. The closing admin. should note that this is just a reopening and rehashing of the already-closed discussion here. LittleBen (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake. The comment isn't "unsubstantiated" - whilst psychopath may be open to dispute, JoshuSasori's actions have been the very definition of anti-social. And the information about the office report backs up the "psychopath" dispute. Also, this is NOTHING to do with the community ban proposal - this is information about what happened to Hijiri, no proposals are being made here. I think if LittleBen is this clearly unable to let the past go, they need to be blocked (interaction ban, or regular block). I second Yunshui's close suggestion, as leaving this open just leaves a venue for LittleBen to gleefully make irrelevant remarks, gravedance, and generally be uncivil. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the "anti-social psychopath" statement is in Hijiri88's long statement above, which isn't hatted. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I opened this discussion to alert other admins new information about what we're dealing with in JoshuSasori, as I said. As it's served its purpose I'm down with closing it. I'd be supportive of any measure to cap off Ben's tangents involving the victim.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:J._Johnson - hostile environment.

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 noted multiple times, this is not the correct forum by a longshot. The OP has been advised as to where to take it - if they choose to ignore the advice provided, then so be it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thus far we have 3 users who have indicated action is needed and one who as indicatd it isn't. Closing as no action is clearly premature.--Elvey (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to keep the record straight, I submit that the complainant Elvey has weak support from one user (Ego White Tray), and has not "proven to be repeatedly disruptive" any behavior at Earthquake prediction but what has his name on it.

As Elvey wants to invoke a community ban or such, I ask: would this occasion be appropriate for discussing a topic on him? Or should that go to AN/I? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Pages: Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

Earthquake prediction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk:Earthquake prediction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

User being reported: J._Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notices have been sent to J._Johnson, Readin, Ronz, NewsAndEventsGuy, Ego White Tray, J. Johnson.

Attempts to resolve disputes on article talk page: Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2, (and Talk:Earthquake_prediction).

Comments:

Reading WP:DDE and WP:BAN (which says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ") leads me to post here. I have noticed that over the long term, an unusually large fraction of JJ's edits appear to be disruptive, tendentious, hostile, and/or edit warring (though blatant 3RR violation is avoided).

He is aggressively arguing with many editors in ways that frequently lead to well-founded accusations of policy violations, and the rule, rather than the exception, is that he refuses to get the point - whether it is a clear explanation of how policy applies or does not apply to a particular edit or series of edits. Multiple attempts by multiple editors to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed. JJ's apparrent level of comprehension of comments directed toward him is so low I frequently find it indicative of refusal to get the point, that is, WP:IDHT, W:CIR.

An unusually large fraction of JJ's edits are to Talk pages, and an unusually large fraction of those talk page edits are hostile comments toward fellow editors.

Proposed Sanctions

I see imposition of 1RR as a solution; many users have left the user constructive feedback, but it's clear from the responses that it falls on deaf ears, as it is often removed or hatted.

If that's not an option available to admins, then a full block indefinitely, or for a while, may unclog the ears, so to speak. WFM. Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The summaries (and links to edit diffs) at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history and comments on Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2 by JJ are hardly anything but example after example of WP:disruptive editing by JJ!

WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not justify JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits to Earthquake prediction, and similar articles!

The edit summaries alone at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history show that everyone else is wrong, and JJ is right, according to JJ; you don't even need to look at the diffs:

1. "Removed POV nonsense" - JJ to Readin, who asked for civility. [75]
2. "Bah. Waste of time, collapsing" - JJ to Ronz, [76]
3. To NewsAndEventsGuy's"Battleground alert, again": (post-">20" incidents...so eloquent!): <ignored>, after "where in WP:BATTLEGROUND does it say there is an exception for [a] "little" piling on?"
4. <again> "Removing empty section I don't have time to prepare." - JJ to Ego White Tray - [77], [78] - More evidence JJ thinks this is 'his' article, in violation of WP:OWN.
5. (This requires viewing at least a snippet of the diff.) The comment summary, What is "adequate proof"?: Why? is the best - in response to Inamos and Dave souza, JJ's reply includes, ""adequate" is whether the person addressed is persuaded. Well, your original arguments did not persuade me, so by that criterion: not adequate." [79] This goes a long way to explaining the "logic" behind most of JJ's edits.

(If someone wants to be pedantic and insist on actual diffs rather than the format above, let me know here and I'll add links to the above 5 diffs.)

JJ fails to understand simple things - JJ doesn't believe that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Rather, he INSISTs that I MUST prove that "Coren's findings are notable", or allow his removal of them from Earthquake prediction to stand, and even berates me for my belief. He seems to believe that unless he's convinced a change is correct, he should keep it out of Wikipedia, policy be damned. He even goes so far as to insist on keeping out ANY MENTION of this esteemed scientist's published study from being mentioned because its "scientific notability" has not been established (despite multiple news reports about it),and (!) it is not <sic> a reliable source. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ has insisted that it is out of place in an article on the fringe/proto-science of earthquake prediction because of WP:FRINGE - as if the article on the Flat Earth theory should not talk about the main claims in support of that theory either! Please note, I don't see this as a content dispute at all; I happened to find this Coren article interesting, I added it.

Of the last 150 edits to Earthquake_prediction, 68 are by JJ. His edits are in 16 contiguous blocks, 12 of them -that is, all but 4 of his edit blocks contain reverts by him, of half a dozen different editors' attempts to improve 'his' article. (Several are hidden; they are not tagged "Undid revision", but can be found by looking at char deletion counts and edit summaries.)

Even where JJ is mainly right content-wise, he's mainly in the wrong, hostility and policy-wise (e.g. Re. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).

To understand why my editing is productive, see Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Distinguished_from_productive_editing. And, I welcome constructive feedback; I know I'm not perfect. --Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ego White Tray

I stumbled across earthquake prediction one day and started a discussion about mostly cosmetic and style changes. I don't know the topic well, so I won't speak to content issues. My notes about inappropriate tone, off-topic content and excessive quote boxes were first accused of being the act of a sockpuppet (since an IP had recently placed the same tags that JJ removed for no reason), and my arguments were pretty much ignored. I faced a whole lot of strawman arguments, some outright ludicrous ("if you are not interested in statements of scientists..." appears in Archive 2). My suggestion to take quotes out of quote boxes and move them into prose was equated with deleting them altogether, something I never said. JJ then removed the tag for no other reason that I hadn't commented in 10 days. My statement that I understood what he was trying to do was equated with agreement (it wasn't).

I hope that JJ can learn to ignore the small stuff and let it be. JJ, give WP:FUCK a good read. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy

First, is this the right place for an ANI regarding editor behavior? Last, I note that editors who have voiced negative feedback to JJ were notified. Since it is at least possible that there are many editors on the various article talk pages who might feel differently, but were not notified, one might wonder whether I feel inappropriately canvassed? And I might say that I do.... if I gave a WP:FUCK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PS I just noticed Elvey's preliminary inquiry about canvassing, and would just like to thank him/her for thinking about it up front. Like the answer you got said....it is a tricky issue. No worries here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by J. Johnson

In the first place, this does not seem to be the appropriate venue for this, but here we are.

Second, this complaint is nothing more than the extension of a dispute at Talk:Earthquake prediction, and the inclusion of Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change is only an attempt to widen the base from which he would pick complaints. Indeed, of the five edit summaries he complains of only one is from Earthquake prediction, where I removed an empty section for the reason stated. (And neither that edit nor the summary support his point.) (He also mischaracterizes the discussion cited in his point #5.)

Without going into a point-by-point rebuttal (but I will respond to any specific requests), the principal dispute is that Elvey is fixated on including certain material, the "Coren dog study". I have opposed this on the grounds that such an inclusion would violate the WP policies regarding fringe, notability, and reliable sources, besides being unuseful and would give one section undue weight vis-a-vis other sections. (See Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2#Coren.27s dog findings.3F for the details.). A secondary dispute regards the quote boxes (and "quote farm" tagging). There I have provided a response I believe adequate for any reasonable person, to which Elvey has not demurred on any point.

The bottom line here is that Elvey wants to include some inherently unsuitable material. And not being able deny its unsuitability he would beat down my objection with these bombastic and unfounded complaints that I am "hostile". I submit that the complaint really should run the other way. I would particularly complain of various demeaning statements. E.g.: "JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits ...", "JJ fails to understand simple things", "JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy", etc.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Just this evening Elvey has intruded himself into a civil discussion between myself and another editor with this. I deem this to be harassment, and a demonstration of bad faith. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note Yup. None of the above legalistic wall-o-texts above belong here at all. Climate change articles are under restrictions, IIRC. ANI doesn't do reams of junk like the above. If the OP has a complaint that is not related to existing ArbComm or AE restrictions, then try less than 2 paragraphs of complaint with diff's. If you're trying to prove a pattern of behaviour AND you love wall-o-text, try an WP:RFC/U. Otherwise, the above will merely fade into the archives unanswered (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I was involved in the content dispute for a short while but dropped out in December. I also mistakenly warned Elvey about 3RR[[80] (see my post at the Village pump technical as the addition of a 'see also' produced an edit summary calling it a revert)[81]. Elvey's response was the templated warning "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" and despite my apology and explanation he maintained his accusation that I'd abused the template and that in fact he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had). I mention all of this not just because he was being a bit aggressive but because he must be aware of my involvement and that I wasn't supporting him in the dispute. If JJ hadn't notified me (neutrally) I wouldn't be aware of this, so I agree that there is inappropriate canvassing. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh. My. God. Your accusation is BLATANTLY false, Doug, as I've explained. You did abuse the template. I thought you finally realized that, indeed, I hadn't exceeded 2RR, and that's why you hadn't responded after I posted the linked-to reply. And, I noticed that you are here after JJ [82] [you twice]. I don't understand how someone - an admin with as many edits as you, to the articles you edit, could possibly not know that it takes 4 reverts to violate 3RR. If you commented here to show that I'm in the wrong, you couldn't have picked a better COUNTER-example. Thanks! Are you going to admit your wrong, or continue to deny reality, Doug? Or must I admit and love the fact that 2+2=5? --Elvey (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Your post to my talk page then included the statement " I didn't break 3RR, and I didn't break 2RR.".]You repeat this on your talk page.[83]. Now you are admitting to 2RR? Which you did. I never suggested that you violated 3RR and I explained why I thought you'd hit 3RR in detail and enquired at the Vllage Pump (Technical) as to why your 3rd edit said "revert" in the automatic edit sujmmary (of course, if you'd made an edit summary yourself I wouldn't have warned you). Now you've been here longer than I am (although you have few edits), and you were quoting 3RR in 2006), and yet you clearly don't understand the use of the warning template. It's used when an editor reaches 3RR (or perhaps more if they haven't been warned) to inform them of the fact that another revert can get them blocked. It doesn't say that the editor has reach 4RR. The reason I didn't reply again was that it dealing with you is difficult and boring and I had better things to do than repeat myself again. It's been a long time since your were blocked indefinitely for failure to get a clue and creating a hostile editing environment but you really need to start AGFing and being more civil. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh. My. God. I don't believe you read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elvey&diff=541616486&oldid=541608766!! Please read it, Doug. It's written to you. I went so far as to post to your talk page asking you to read it and respond. --Elvey (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My edit above is my response. I retracted my 3RR warning and expained why I thought you'd made 3 reverts. I don't know what a 2RR violation would be, unless it would be 3RR which I agreed you hadn't done. Frankly I can't make much sense of your post to your talk page. I'm not even sure if you are still saying you didn't even make 2 reverts or that you did, although that really doesn't matter to me. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by _

Reply by Elvey

Ego White Tray,
Thanks, that's a useful summary. I would say that with me, I ALSO found 1)my arguments were pretty much ignored, 2)inappropriate tone was the norm too, and 3)suggestions were misrepresented in ludicrous ways as well - e.g. the strawman arguments where JJ insists that I had said 'WP:WEIGHT is nonsense" when I had (of course) said pretty much the opposite: I wrote, to show that WEIGHT supported inclusion of Coren, "How many people think animals can predict earthquakes? Lots. You are aware that the Chinese have an official [Government] snake-based early warning system?" But JJ didn't respond to that question, but rather, falsely, tendentiously and distractingly, accused me THREE TIMES, of saying WEIGHT is nonsense, even though after EACH accusation, I tell him that I had never said that, rather I quoted from WEIGHT three times, with quotes that show that it SUPPORTS Coren's inclusion in [[Earthquake prediction], an "article on the historical views" of the idea that earthquakes are predictable, because what including Coren does is "discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief"!

Bwilkins,
You seem to be ignoring the reason I gave for posting here; it's in the OP - the very first sentence of my comment: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) " - and I wish to discuss community sanctions, so I started this thread. How can you make me wrong for doing exactly what policy says I may do? Why do you chose to get all hostile and insult my writing, which I tried hard to make readable 'and skimmable', with terms like wall-o-text and REAMS OF JUNK? Would you please consider and share your opinion on whether JJ has been creating a hostile environment, and if he has, what sanction is appropriate? I provided the edit summaries of 5 diffs, and the diffs. If my post is too long for your taste, and you had time to reply but not read it, then just read the edit summaries of the 5 numbered diffs and let me know. TL;DR 5 summaries? No way.

Generally, it's interesting how JJ refuses to acknowledge that the topic is creating a hostile environment in general, but rather attempts to redefine it, to draw attention away from the fact that there's ample evidence he's been creating a hostile environment all over Wikipedia. Regarding Coren, I have responded both here and on the article talk page, as to why my contribution regarding Coren is suitable, citing relevant policy ad nauseum, most recently yesterday but JJ has not replied! Of course, having brought this issue to administrator attention, I expect a certain amount of attention to my comments, such as the ones JJ mentions - "JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits ...", "JJ fails to understand simple things", "JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy", etc. I've cited a number of editors who have termed JJ's edits hostile, and I think my comments which are quoted are measured and I took pains to avoid inflammatory or making ad-hominem comments, but as I said, "I welcome constructive feedback; I know I'm not perfect." Calling what appear to be ownership-based reverts as such is not hostile, it's appropriate, when the justification is supported with references to policy and JJ's edits, as my comments were. Ditto where policy has been fabricated and mis-represented.--Elvey (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that neither the AN nor ANI are suitable for this sort of discussion. AN as said above is for matters affecting administrators. Your dispute with another editor does not "affect" administrators per se. Normally, I would have also said ANI is the place for this but you've linked to so much stuff that the only possible recourse you have is RFC/U. As for community sanctions, these are such things as topic bans, site bans, interaction bans, ARBCOM or discretionary sanctions etc. JJ has none of these sanctions and generally discussions of these don't occur here until the subject of the sanction has been hauled to ANI or perhaps SPI several times (not really a policy based view but just a general observation). Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackmane,

What you're saying blatantly contradicts policy. It's simply not true, based on "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ", which as I said, is a direct quote from WP:BAN, in particluar the section WP:CBAN. A more extensive quote:

Community bans and restrictions

The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions on editors who have exhausted the community's patience:

• If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

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

So your statement that "the only possible recourse you have is RFC/U" is simply, well, false. Would you please consider and share your opinion on whether JJ has been creating a hostile environment, and if he has, what sanction is appropriate? I provided the edit summaries of 5 diffs and more recently, the actual diffs, and a link to more. If my post is too long for your taste, and you had time to reply but not read it, then just read the edit summaries of the 5 numbered diffs and let me know. TL;DR for 5 summaries? No way. --Elvey (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually did read the whole post you laid out above. ALso your linking directly to the community sanctions section is all well amnd good, but in general that is rarely how things end up happening. It's nice that you tried to make it conform to what you read in the guide but usually admins prefer something short and sweet. That aside, if you wish for an opinion, then it would be that: the environment is no more "hostile" than others I've seen. There are 3 editors involved in the vast majority of the discussion on the talk page archive that you linked me to, yourself, Ego White Tray and JJ. When discussion becomes limited to such a small number then drawing lines in the sand will of course lead to friction. This is probably a dumb question, but have WP:3O or WP:DRN been attempted? Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm here to determine community consensus. I don't care if you prefer a longer, more drawn out, more-complicated-than-I-can-grok process, because this one is acceptable under policy, and I'm determined to see it through. Just three? I showed that there are multiple editors other than those three who have had lengthy disputes with JJ that are problematic. Even where JJ is mainly right content-wise, he's mainly in the wrong, hostility and policy-wise (e.g. Re. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). Where are EWT and I in that? --Elvey (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and 660 of your 1487 edits are to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[WP] (605) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[WP] (55). — Blackmane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Elvey (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is uncalled for and suggests you haven't read WP:SPA - or WP:AGF for that matter. You seem happy to template experienced editors and now you've tried to denigrate someone by salling them an SPA. Have you evidence that this editor has been generally unconstructive? A quick glance at Blackmane's talk page history turns up [84] which is an Admin's compliment for a post by Blackmane to another editor trying to help that editor with a problem. I think you owe Blackmane an apology. I'd hate to think you'd returned to old habits - but this sort of comment does "create a hostile editing environment". Yes, that was a long time ago, but some of your recent posts (and your exchange with me) haven't exactly improved the editing environment. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(repost) I read SPA up to where it mentioned the template, then I read the template and used it. AFAIK, there's no rule against identifying a suspected SPA, there is for identifying a suspected SOCK, but apples and oranges. If I'm wrong and there is, I apologize in advance. I'm off to read SPA in full. Please take a moment to respond to my reply to your comment above about 3RR, Doug. --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved user here, but how the hell is 827 edits outside of this "topic" being ignored, and how the hell have you come to the conclusion they're an SPA? SPAs have at most about 10 edits outside of one specific topic - your tagging of Blackmane as an SPA is about as inappropriate and disruptive as it gets. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I had closed this disruptive and improper filing - my close text still appears at the top of this thread. Elvey has very disruptively re-opened this, after repeated directions as to where this complaint belongs. I fear a wP:BOOMERANG may be flying very very soon, especially based on their most recent comments above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Repeating your claim that it's improper doesn't make it so. What you're saying blatantly contradicts policy; see direct quotes from WP:BAN, in particular the section WP:CBAN, that I posted above, to Blackmane. Or are you going to avoid having an actual discussion? --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you seem bent on avoiding actual productive engaged conversation. I wrote

"Thus far we have 3 users who have indicated action is needed and one who as indicated it isn't. Closing as no action is clearly premature.--Elvey (talk) 10:10 am, Today (UTC−8)"

Don't threaten me when I have made it quite clear why I think that what I've done is do exactly what the policy says I may do, and you've made no effort whatsoever to provide any evidence that I'm wrong (other than to state your opinion, as if your opinion automatically should have the standing of actual policy...)--Elvey (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Time to close this

No one has supported a ban or a 1RR restriction. I don't see a need for Admin action here. Elvey can open an RfC/U if he wishes. As I've said, his behavior is not dissimilar to the behavior (failure to get a clue and creating a hostile working environment) that got him indefinitely blocked before and if he continues in this vein would support some sort of sanction. I'm concerned about what may happen at Earthquake prediction once this is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you don't consider Ronz or EWT's comments 'count' as being in support of a ban or a 1RR restriction.--Elvey (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My 2RR comments

Elvey has posted to my talk page about this. I can see my confusion - above at one point where I wrote "exceeded 2RR" I meant to say reached 2RR - I can see that he agrees he's done that but then there's no problem with reaching 2RR unless of course an editor has a 1RR restriction. I've never heard of an accusation that someone has breached 2RR which is what Elvey was talking about - do we make 2RR restrictions as well as 1RR? Anyway, sorry for the confusion - I now understand that he was saying about 2RR. I still read his original posts as meaning that a 3RR warning is a warning that an editor has breached 3RR rather than reached 3RR (eg on my talk page he writes "you had responded with evidence of just 2 reverts - a 1RR violation at most" - which I didn't understand. I'll add that calm, civil discussion would probably have made this whole discussion, including the one between Elvey and me, easier to understand and resolve. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You advise 'calm, civil discussion' so, I've gone back to the beginning to review my attitude-and yours, to be fair. Please go back and carefully read my first post about all this, right after you accused me of being "engaged in an edit war". And take a look at how YOU responded too. If you hadn't "ignored the bulk of my post" (your words) in December - including the stuff about JJ, and more carefully read what I wrote about 3RR, things would have gone a helluva lot better. Or at least Ronz would think they'd have gone better, I'm sure. See what I'm saying? --Elvey (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for FINALLY 'getting a clue' after falsely accusing me about half a dozen times of having violated 2RR, even though I eloquently defended myself each time, quite calmly considering I had been falsely accused once, then twice, then three times... Clearly the "failure to get a clue" was yours, yes? Would you mind explicitly retracting the false accusations, which you made here:"denying 2 reverts" and here (2): warning retracted, but "you are now saying that you weren't even at 2RR" isn't and here (4-7, depending on how you count repeats):"he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had)", "Now you are admitting to [violating] 2RR? Which you did.", "clearly don't understand", "need to start AGFing", and finally "My edit above is my response." - which is a restatement of the last 3 false accusations)? An apology would go a lot further than a futile and defensive (and ongoing) attempt to deny or justify ~half a dozen false accusations. How 'bout it, Doug? --Elvey (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, I said "sorry for the confusion" which I am - I don't like being confused and I particularly don't like being confused when it impacts negatively on others, in this case you, however you expressed yourself. You didn't violate 2RR which is why I deleted my 3RR warning. I'd still like to know if you think a 3RR warning is meant to be given to an editor who has made 3 reverts or to an editor who has made more than 3 reverts. In the discussion about the 3RR warning I mistakenly gave you, you wrote[85] "I didn't break 3RR"(I never suggested you did) and " So even if I had violated 2RR <sic>, which I hadn't and you acknowledge I hadn't, you abused the template by using it to accuse me of edit warring." But that's wrong. If you'd "violated 2RR" ('violated' is a confusing word here as there is nothing to violate) you would be at 3RR and the template would have been appropriate - that's what it's for. Are we agreed on this? Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd still like to know - do you accept that you falsely accused me about half a dozen times long after I'd shown I had NOT violated 2RR (as I believe the diffs above show) or that "Clearly the 'failure to get a clue' was yours?" I see that you retracted one false accusation but then reverted that retraction. Yes, you said "sorry for the confusion", but you didn't say it to me, rather, you did continue to assert that the confusion was mine. I have not said anything that actually showed I was confused or wrong about what the warning you misused is for; if you think I have, feel free to provide a diff/link. You haven't acknowledged or apologized for your confusion. Would you please explicitly (e.g. state here that you) retract the ~half dozen false accusations I linked to above? (rather than doing so in place but then restoring them?) --Elvey (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is posting a request at the Village Pump (policy) for input here forum shopping?

Here[86] saying " I could use some input from uninvolved editors (you?) at W:AN#User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment to review some diffs and such and help achieve consensus on action against a disruptive editor." He denies it is forum-shopping. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly is disruptive, which this editor doesn't seem to understand the concept of. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In that context, this request by a previously-unregistered account at the Third Opinion project might ought to be taken into account. (It's been reverted as not being within the scope of the project.) I suspect that it was a misguided attempt to preserve neutrality, as is encouraged by that project (requests are not signed, but this was not suggested), so I've not filed an SPI report but thought that it ought to be mentioned here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I love " Disagreement about whether the user violated 2RR by making 2 reverts.". If the IP isn't Elvey he/she is as confused as Elvey. I've gone into this in a bit of detail above. Weird. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The SPA has now stated on my talk page that the use of the alternate account was not for neutrality but to avoid alleged edit stalking. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC) And in light of that statement, I've now filed an SPI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've explained above, this was confusion on my part. so I've struck my statement. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Readin

The same notice that was given to me should have been provided to the talk page where the problem occurred.

When I attempted to contributed to a page related to climate change, I felt like I was being ambushed rather than having a discussion. The comments were almost uniformly unconstructive, for reasons such as assuming that I had nefarious motives, not bothering to consider what I had written or said, personal attacks on my intelligence, strawmen arguments, etc..

J Johnson's comments stood out as particularly hurtful and deliberately poisonous to the discussion, so much so that I quickly stopped responding to him even as I tried to get a contsructive discussion going with other editors. This happened some months ago.

However there was more recently a discussion in which a different editor encountered similar issues. I attempted to help him. Eventually, with the help of NewsAndEventsGuy and a couple others, the conversation eventually became constructive and J Johnson did behave civily to me in part of that discussion. Readin (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I can't find the latter discussion; link? Does it suggest admin action is unnecessary? If so, great - and, I'd love to see it. The last interaction I can find is the one I linked to - this snarky revert of Readin's comment with the edit summary, I kid you not, of "Removed POV nonsense."--Elvey (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I doubt you'll read this because you steadfastly refuse to read ANY of the help provided to you before this, "Removed POV nonsense" is not blockable or actionable in any way. It does not discuss the editor, it discusses content, which is a hallmark of this project. Indeed, most of your original post was full of similar non-actionable phrases. Those may have possibly come across as uncivil, but not personal attacks. Try reading WP:WIAPA for once in your life. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Climate Change sanctions/restrictions

I could use some help understanding the comments some have made about JJ's edits re. Climate Change content, in that if JJ is violating Arbcom sanctions/restrictions, which ones? I'm trying to figure out what means. I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions means that if JJ has been warned, admins can impose whatever sanction they choose, if he violates a policy he's been warned of? Yes, No, sorta? If I read correctly, the warning doesn't count if it's from a regular user or an involved administrator, or doesn't reference the sanctions; is that correct? Yes, No, sorta? If so, I wonder if JJ has been or should be thus warned re. OWN, CIVIL, etc., W.R.T. global warming.--Elvey (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2013 (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.

Closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda

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 an ongoing conflict over articles relating to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar which arose out of this FT/N discussion. The problem, from my perspective, is quite vexing: Sarkar and some of his organizations/theories are influential in India, and there were some political scrapes he and they got into, so the frequent FT/N "delete all of it" response is not called for. What we have, though, is a mass of promotional articles written apparently by followers from primary sources within the movement, and attempts to get some of these articles deleted or merged (e.g. those for each of the books Sarkar wrote) brought on a very strong backlash from a few editors, plus responses from a bunch of new SPAs. This led to the above SPI, which was inconclusive, but which hasn't been closed; instead, it has turned into a clearing house for keeping score on the various articles and people on both sides. This seems to me to have become utterly nonconstructive, and I ask that it be closed ASAP. But I could also use some advice/criticism about taking this forward. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I can say I was literally haunted by some users that seems closely connected with the above user:Mangoe: user:bobrayner, User:Garamond Lethe, and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for them but I have my suspicions. I expressed, however my strong complaints in some of the AfD's proposed by them. I suggest you all to take a look at this interesting table on "Deletions and AfDs" (made/launched by those users) here. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints (unfortunately it has not happened yet). I emphasize that the activity of some of these users seems strongly focused in trying, with persistence, to remove everything that is connected with the Indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar under the pretext that they are promotional items. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page on the sandbox of the user above, containing all the links related with this author. We have clear evidence of the follow-up of their agenda in the revision history here of the page and from some of their thalks. A clear example of that is the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe that after losing this AfD he deleted almost the entire article as you can see from the history here. I reverted but after a while the user User:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition. I could quote here several cases of improper behavior of the user user:bobrayner that seems magically connected with the users above. Are these behaviors adhering to the rules of WP?--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking this to AN/I since their seems to be no admin interest in closing and we're heading for this to blow up again. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Mariadomican

This account seems to have been marked as one of mine. I hate to flog the dead horse but could someone do a CheckUser on it? It isn't one of mine and I'm not sure why it's been marked as one of mine.--Launchballer 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser is inappropriate here, and besides would be stale anyways since the account was last blocked in 2008. That said, I cannot dig up any evidence tying that account to you (no edits under that account, no mention of it at your SPI case, no mention of CheckUser in the block reason), I have deleted its user page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Launchballer 08:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That account, along with 36 others, was CheckUser confirmed as a sock in this case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

The Wikipedia:Copyright problems is backlogged to the point where the page is now breaking, even after moving all the 2012 noms to a subpage. I don't have the time to do this nearly single-handedly, and even tackling a week's worth would be a big help. Wizardman 04:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Help still needed. Cleared one day and see one other person helping only... Wizardman 18:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motions with respect to functionaries

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with Checkuser and Oversight tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Community appointees to the AUSC are discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool; however, they are permitted to use the tools in order to develop a sufficient skill level to adequately assess the actions of Checkusers and Oversighters, and may assist in addressing time-sensitive situations, or serious backlogs. Community AUSC appointees who held advanced permission(s) prior to their term will retain the permission(s) they held prior to their appointment. Community AUSC appointees who did not hold advanced permissions prior to their term may apply to retain Checkuser and/or Oversight during any Checkuser/Oversight appointment cycle that occurs during their term and, if successfully appointed, will assume their new role at the end of the AUSC term.

The Arbitration Committee confirms the current procedures with respect to advanced permissions and inactivity as approved in March 2011, with the exception of retitling the provision "CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity".

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

I need a daring administrator

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, and as a result several editors involved in the AFD and in debates about related articles have started asking me for assistance. I reproduce messages that were left on my talk page (section "DRV") over the last few days, while I wasn't editing due to lots of travelling:

Could you take a look and if possible review a DYK entry I started[87], which WhiteWriter decided to "review" too. Personally, I consider it disruptive when someone decides to join such a debate only to accuse the nominator of POV-pushing, although content has been written per the sources and mention ARBMAC. Note that he joined another DYK entry I had nominated in January and kept stalling the proper review with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and accusations until I asked from an admin to review it, which of course led WW to stop disrupting it[88]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, read this very carefully. Other users already commented the same info on article's talk, while user Zjarri was informed before that presenting sources like that is misleading. I didnt review it, i just stated the problem with it. This kind of reporting to admin is very bad faith toward me, as user didnt even talked to me, and presented you falsely that i stalk edits. But you, Nyttend, as involved in all of this, can see that problem actually exist, and it should be fixed. Please, Nyttend, read this with care, as that info is actually unsourced, violation of agreement, and at the end questionable info, and all of that in DYK, and on the main page. Also, Zjarri added this person on Đakovica page, while moving only Serbian on that list down below everyone, based on what criteria? Head of central national television is more important that some minor folk singers. You are welcomed to join article talk and say your opinion in this. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. That "disruptions", as presented to you, on former DYK article was fixed and corrected in current version by other users. It looks like those were not disruptions, but wiki guidelines. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. Unfortunately, i will not be at home and near internet in the next seven days (or maybe more), so i will not be able to check your respond, as i will soon have to go... Please, look at that discussion for more info, and i hope that everything will be solved in the meantime. I doubt that this will stay opened question until then, anyway... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not familiar with the field, and I'm not sufficiently informed to make good judgements about things like WP:ARBMAC; I closed the original AFD because the results of the discussion appeared clear-cut and because issues such as ARBMAC didn't appear to be major parts of the discussion. Could someone else take care of the situation? If nobody else will sign up, I'll do my best, but I can't do as well as others. Finally, note that I'm not asking for sanctions or the absence of sanctions on anyone; this is purely a message saying "Please help, and here's the context". Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a willing admin is needed. Like I mentioned in the original message I've stuck to the sources and have been accused of POV-pushing by WhiteWriter because I used the term "Serbian" that as you can see is the one used by the sources. On the same page, user Evlekis is commenting on users who "like to tarnish the Serbian name" and during the AfD debate that Nyttend closed he was accusing users who supported deletion as "denialists". Of course Evlekis has been edit-warring on Bardhyl Çaushi and has breached 3RR so admin intervention will definitely be needed on that field(1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th) given that he has a history of "final warnings" as regards edit-warring[89]. Personally, I find his disregard for sources (on the talkpage he's accusing the Helsinki Committee as "poorly written and POV-fuelled (pro-international position)") unacceptable. As for that edit on Dakovica, the list was arranged alphabetically based on personal names so I listed alphabetically based on last names as is the norm. So to sum up, I'd like an admin to review my DYK entry and evaluate if the content corresponds to the sources as has been done in the past when WhiteWriter again decided to comment/review my DYK entries (only that stopped him from stalling it any further) and also admin intervention on the ongoing edit-war.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, without even addressing the specifics here it is obviously completely inappropriate for a DYK to be reviewed by someone involved in a dispute about the same subject area with the same user. I mean really, really, obvious, like there is no way WW could possibly have honestly believed it was appropriate. Commenting is one thing, but actually reviewing the DYK? No. That review should be struck and a new reviewer with no previous involvement found. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Most issues have been partly solved, but the DYK is still in need of review. Could you review it?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone check something?

Specifically, those who dare check such things, could you see what, if anything, the javascript an IP editor tried to add in this diff (among others) to Jeff Gordon does anything? I don't want to overreact and revdel innocuous edits, but if there's malicious code in there, I don't trust my system to check it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. Googling the class key "ktg6us78hf8vdu7" provides lots of hits; MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-codespill indicates it's inserted by "malicious browser extensions." NE Ent 22:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That last edit showed op un my watchlist with a tag on it indicating "automatic insertion of extraneous formatting". I'm wondering if WP:VPT should be informed of this, there are usually users there who can sort this kind of stuff out. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The filter activated on the string beginning with "ktg..." in my explanation above. Harmless false positive. I had to hit save twice to override the filter, which makes me curious as to whether the IP did, too. NE Ent 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I get that you aren't up to anything, but I would assume we have an edit filter for this sort of thing for a reason. I just have no idea what that reason might be. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The filter is trying to detect and prevent the insertion of a chunk of javascript, such as the one Bushranger provided, which includes that particular string. NE Ent 23:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've invited the last editor who edited the message to comment here, since I've reached the edge of my tech knowledge here. NE Ent 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And since we are obviously well pastthe edge of my tech knowledge I have cross-posted this at VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The story behind these edits are that there is some spammy browsers extensions which add the tags. I've been monitoring them for about a month and we seem to get around 5 edits a day which include the javascript. I've not seen any false positives. They tend to come from IP's but also from a few logged in users. I've asked one editor about it and he confirmed that it was caused but a browser extension which managed to install itself without his knowledge. Often the edits have some good content. The edits are detected by Special:AbuseFilter/345 log which first warns the user and then adds a tag. Due to the high accuracy of the filter it could be made to prevent the edit but that would require it to be split into two filters.--Salix (talk): 01:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Google search for the class turns up a ton of Wikipedia results with pages infected with the obscure js code. I'm trying to find out what hthis does. No luck yet.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I used our own search and fixed all the pages affected locally. It appears that there are a large number on other language Wikis. Ryan Vesey 02:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is. My browser won't let me run it and it seems not to do anything on my iPhone. It could be a phishing link.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's malicious. It's probably just a bug. The last post at it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Stringa ktg6us78hf8vdu7 che appare nelle voci says "I tested with a editor who had the problem and I found that the bug comes from Facecons, an extension for Google Chrome." It also happens at many unrelated websites with user-edited content, for example Twitter and non-MediaWiki forums. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Eekster

Definitely an incident. Please see WP:ANI#User:Eekster. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove "Fewer than 30 watchers" limit

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Remove "Fewer than 30 watchers" limit

I've created tools for unwatched pages. I would like to remove the 500+ edit minimum from these tools, including one that gives out lists of inactivitly-unwatched articles by WikiProjects sortable by link count. I've already setup a recent unwatched changes tool and would consider adding features to my WikiProject tools. The facts are: 492,381 of 4,182,163 articles (12%) have no watchers and more if remove inactive users (911,062, 21%). A vandal has a 1 in 5 shot of hitting an unwatched page and as users burden themselves with large watchlists small edits will be missed. — Dispenser 00:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems more like a policy proposal than a request for admin action. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved. — Dispenser 01:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages. The normal concern is that vandals could get access. I would support giving Rollbackers access to this page since they received the tool because they fight vandalism. Ryan Vesey 01:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to a compelling argument for the security through obscurity. RC patrol tools don't avoid heavily watched pages and they catch the vandalism. — Dispenser 01:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

They don't catch 100% of vandalism, though, particularly the subtle vandalism. The kind of sneaky stuff you might expect from an editor who seeks out obscure pages to vandalise... so security-through-obscurity still has some value. bobrayner (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Entire series of vandalism-only accounts found

Patrolling for vandalism, I found an entire series of accounts (usernames like "wikighost13", "wikighost14", etc. in numerical sequence) that appear to be vandalism-only accounts, some even declaring this to be the case in their talk pages (see: User_talk:Wikighost20). Some of them do not have namespace/talk pages or have made any edits, but all edits from this series that I've looked at have been vandalism. Could an admin look into these accounts please? Thanks. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 07:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking Special:ListUsers/Wikighost shows that they operate numbers from 1-20, where 1-10 have already been blocked. Wikighost, Wikighost123, Wikighost275 and Wikighost966 seem to be unrelated.--Launchballer 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If the IP matches the earlier set we've got ban evasion as well. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 12:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 11-20 as they fit the series. Left the others. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the recurrent nature and block evasion evidenced of this vandal, would not an IP-block also be a wise move? ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That would require a checkuser. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have initiated sockpuppet/checkuser investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikighost1#12_March_2013) to fully remedy the problem. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 10:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock

Obvious sock with my initials "SD" reverting me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stuck_in_SD_with_Yaming

Please block. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a good edit. "Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights" is sufficient. No comment on behavioral issues.74.92.229.10 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Though I may be missing something, I don't see evidence that could suggest that this account is a sock. It appears that the user only made only one revert. While it is a unique username, SD could also represent a location, such as San Diego, South Dakota, etc. and not necessarily represent your username's initials. Mike V • Talk 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

He has so far wikihounded me to two articles. Its an old user for sure. I have had problems with this before. The IP is also in on it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are welcome to present your evidence at WP:SPI. Do you have an idea of which editor would be the sockmaster or is it a hunch? Andrew³²⁷ 02:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No comment except on the username — it's innocuous, since SD can mean lots of things, including those that Mike V mentioned. Please base your arguments about socking solely on things like being hounded. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram closed

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

1. Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
2. Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
3. For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
4. SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
5. The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @277  ·  05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Spam account?

Professor93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits look rather problematic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't appear to be a spambot, so I've taken the effort to at least give him an only warning. Can be reported to AIV if he ignores that. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted pages

I've started a thread over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Admin viewing of deleted pages that could be of interest to admins working in the deletion (or revival...) area, or those of a technical bent. Peridon (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights

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

Based on his commitment not to reverse any block designated as an oversight-based block [90], Kevin's administrator privileges are reinstated, effective immediately. He is strongly admonished for reversing the block and warned to abide by all applicable policies governing the conduct of administrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) closed

An arbitration case regarding Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing.
2. The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt, recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times, and determines that the topic ban will remain in place and is assumed under the Arbitration Committee's authority.
3. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is indefinitely prohibited from uploading images or other media files to the English Wikipedia. Should Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) upload a copyright-violating image to the Wikimedia Commons and subsequently make use of that image on the English Wikipedia in any namespace, he may be subject to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Input needed regarding new "conflict resolution" project (and process?)

Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution#How_is_this_project_different_from_Dispute_Resolution_project to determine if a new project (and perhaps a new Dispute Resolution process) is needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Do not have time to look for the proper place now, but Pope Francis and Pope Francis I are both developing independently. They need to be urgantly merged and one of them fully protected as a redirect. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say you're at the right place! The article's history has been merged and move protection has been put in place until consensus is established. Mike V • Talk 19:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fully protected and redirected to Pope Francis I. Per WP:PV, I don't think a histmerge would be helpful in this case. If consensus develops that Pope Francis I should be moved to Pope Francis (the most likely outcome IMHO), I'd say the current history of Pope Francis can be deleted without any harm. There were few significant edits during this brief period of parallel development. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, there has already been one move by an admin after the page was protected against page moves. Although the admin has agreed that his move can be reverted, others now object to further moves. I will leave the page at the current title, but I strongly believe admin moves of move-protected pages should be reverted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Request to change RfC result

This RfC[91] was created to settle a dispute in a mediation[92], but it did not get enough responses and there was no consensus[93]. This was one of the reasons the mediation was closed without resolving the issue.
However, the RfC was closed by a NAC and the user who closed it formulated a consensus based on the limited responses. The user later said that if the mediation needed to be taken into account, the mediator can change the RfC result[94]. The mediator confirmed that the result should be no consensus, but he does not want to edit it himself and suggested to ask another admin[95][96].
So can someone change the result to no consensus? When the mediation was closed it was suggested to start another RfC later[97], but this would make less sense if this RfC supposedly established a consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD close

Resolved

 – Closed as merge. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy admin corps! Looking for someone with a penchant for closing things who might like to have a look at this AFD. The initial discussion contained (in my view) zero support for retaining the title and I think we've reached consensus in that regard (4 delete/merge incl. nom - 0 keep). There are some discussions that need to happen around whether any material should be included in other articles, but I think they can happen on various relevant talk pages. I listed it at WP:ANRFC a week ago (no response yet) after the second relist and it has been relisted again. Three relists with no extra comments. Anyone? Stalwart111 10:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:RELIST, if a third (or subsequent) relist occurs on an AfD, the admin should explain the rationale for it. Looking at the comments on the AfD, only Ereunetes (talk · contribs) and yourself seem to make comments on the actual sources that would justify the suitability of the article, and there doesn't seem to be a clear view of what should actually happen to it. I'd close as "no consensus", myself, but since it's been relisted, and more eyes will look at it now it's been publicised here, we might as well let the AfD run its course for another week. The suitability of the page title probably wants to be discussed in requested moves. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Ritchie, for taking a look. I suppose my take was that a couple of people with a fairly good understanding of the subject have commented so far and that while there might be some discussions to have about where any useful content might go, there seems to be broad agreement that it shouldn't been in an article with that title. Anyway, yeah, happy for it to run for another week - just feels like we're holding up some productive collegial editing for the sake of bureaucracy. Maybe I'm just impatient. Cheers, Stalwart111 11:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• There's not much of a consensus, but there's certainly one that the article not be kept in its present form, so I have closed as Merge. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Kite, and thanks again Ritchie - much appreciated, both of you. We'll get working on the merge asap. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed closing discussions at WP:PUF

Hi all. There's getting to be quite a backlog of unclosed discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. If someone could pop over and help close these, I would really appreciate it. I am unable to close them because they are discussions I initiated myself, or discussions in which I have posted a comment. SchuminWeb and Explicit used to do this work, but SchuminWeb left in December and Explicit has not edited for nearly a month. It's for the most part easy low-stress work. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to violate WP:LETITGO or anything, but...

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.

---

• Was it really proper for an admin who is currently under administrator review to close this discussion? (And for the record, the review was not started by me, nor did I comment in it.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be proper? Admin review is an informal process which admins can use as a way to gain informal feedback on their own performance, and there's no requirement to not act in an admin role while reviews are active. The closure looks fine to me at first glance, and WP:DRN is the appropriate forum if you have concerns about the closure which can't first be resolved via discussion with J04n (which should also have been a precursor to this post). Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying I necessarily have a problem with the closure; I just wasn't sure s/he should have been the one to close it because after looking at his/her talk page, a lot of users seem to have problems with his/her closures (although I don't know how much merit those users' respective arguments have, as I didn't have time to look through all of the discussions). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who has problems with an admin's edits can bring them up at the review - or AN/I whether or not review is going on. Reviews can go on for a long time, and there's no compulsion to stop mopping during that time. I can't see the point, anyway. It's not a process imposed from above - it's a voluntary request for feedback. Now if someone was coming up for a potentially desysopping review by ArbCom, I could see point in hanging the mop up for the time being - but voluntarily rather than compulsorily, unless, of course, blocking was enforced to prevent damage... Peridon (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like an AfD close, and you've got good reason to, say if a subject is borderline notable and it boils down to whether the sources presented are good enough to get it to clear the notability hurdle, you can just go for a deletion review, so someone else can look at it. PS : isn't this section title just a variant on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 12 March 2013 (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.

Is the copyvio report page broken?

Copyvio report page does not seem to be updating properly. I think it is supposed to auto-add new days but stopped around March 5. See this diff for my comment in edit summary and attempt to manually add today's date. --Lyncs (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see another mention of the page being broken here on March 6. --Lyncs (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's overloaded with reports; we've gotten past the maximum number of page transclusions. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm making up for some work overtime by chipping away on at least a few days. Y'all know the best way to deal with that overload? :D (Heeeeelp!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will give it a second chance now, but if I get reverted again just because I am not admin and not clerk, I will leave it to you guys to clean up.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're worried about it, you can do the copy-pastes and close paraphrases. Picking a day at random (2/24), over half of the listings are for those. Anybody can do those! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I already started with 1/24, hope to complete today. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, it wouldn't be broken if people actually, you know, helped with it! Wizardman 18:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox book}}

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 would like to modify this template to identify and track articles where the cover/image is missing or empty. I think the easiest method would be to just add a parser function that adds a category if there is not a file, but since the template is widely used and protected I thought I would bring the idea here. Werieth (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is mostly a technical request, and I doubt it's going to result in any significant opposition. I've closed the request as completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2013 (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.

File:US-$5-LT-1928-Fr.1525.jpg

Could someone create File:US-$5-LT-1928-Fr.1525.jpg with the following content {{Featured picture|$5 U.S. Banknote}}. I just promoted the image, but the file is on the title blacklist. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I added Godot13's typical file naming pattern to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• 16 consecutive non-lowercase-letters, where the blacklist only allows titles with 10. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I count 15 from the "U" to the "F". Not that it really matters though. Graham87 03:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If you start from ":", which is non lower case, I see 16.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pie for everyone

TParis has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

I just want to make a comment here in the middle of some heated issues. We currently have drama of epic proportions spreading out all over Wikipedia that have resulted in blocks of some Wikipedians, Arbcom motions, numerous ANI threads, and a change in the block policy. With all of this drama going on, it tends to brew bad blood. I just want to take a moment to remind everyone that we all have the good of the encyclopedia at heart. Even when arguing with your opponents and questioning their competence, remember that we're all technically on the same side. We're all here trying to build the world's largest free knowledge encyclopedia. That's a worthy endeavor. We should all be grateful of the effort one-another puts in, despite any differences in opinion on how it's done. This project has gone through some pretty tough trials, this is one of them, and I think it's a measure of a team on how well they can overcome these trials. When the day is done, let's just remember what our goal is. Thanks!--v/r - TP 13:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Like Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

TP, I applaud your opening up a topic like this and heartily agree with the sentiments. At the same time, it would be helpful if you could summarize the various things you mentioned. I can tell you what little I know to get it started:

1. User:Hersfold resigned his tools. I don't know why.
2. User:Coren resigned as an arbitrator. He left an announcement that explains his reasons.
3. The block policy. I've only glanced at the goings-on. Based on that glance, the changes you mention concern oversight; is that right?
4. Blocks. I'm somewhat aware of the Demiurge blocking bouncing ball. Are there others?
5. ArbCom motions. I'm not up on these.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Have a look here, then here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a Signpost piece would be good for explaining this mess? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just one day late for Pi Day.--Salix (talk): 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• What flavor is the pie? Pardon me for asking, but I prefer to know before I take a bite. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just click on the picture - it's nectarine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know, but do we have to go with the picture? Is there sufficient consensus for it to be nectarine? I say it should be peach pie, as I haven't had any of that kind in quite a while. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus is determined by the depth of the pie and the amount of coverage on top of the fruit; it is not determined by the number of votes for a particular fruit. I should add that the picture says it's nectarines, but I see some scattered other stuff - looks like berries of some sort. Perhaps the pie has been vandalized.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Definitely possible. Maybe an SPA? It's not that I have anything against Nectarine Pie (I don't recall ever having any, although the picture is torturing me), it's just that Peach or Cherry is so much easier to type quickly. However, that is a very good picture and I was going to make it a Featured Picture Candidate, until I discovered it is not being used in any articles. A shame. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like nectarines, then you can just have a piece of pi. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am trying to block out the memories of the last time I had a peach pie...it was pretty wretched. Can we get consensus on apple? Go Phightins! 21:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Apple is also easier to type quickly and I haven't had any of that lately either. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oppose nectarine. It defintely looks like pecan. I'm suspicious about all the supposedly "unrelated" editors !voting nectarine; this could be meat fruit puppetry or canvasing by TParis who is a well-known member of the nectarine faction. Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also something about linking to external sites www.applepieisthebest.com NE Ent 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just one question, do we get to throw them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here's another question: Can't we just have pie-flavored pie? ZappaOMati 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um... pie-flavored pie? Not sure what to think about that. Just remember, pies are people too (not really)! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Apple
• 
  Pecan
• 
  Cherry
• 
  Pumpkin
• 
  Blackberry pie a la mode
• 
  Blueberry
• 
  Sweet Potato
• 
  Lemon Meringue

Hopefully there is now something for everyone. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• How was I supposed to add references without a reflist? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I want cheesecake...., and invoke WP:IAR.Lectonar (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you can find pictures of that somewhere here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Feminists Engage Wikipedia and anti-feminist backlash

There's an event going on today called Feminists Engage Wikipedia. It's documented on-wiki at Wikipedia:Meetup/Feminists Engage Wikipedia. This has caught the attention of the men's rights crowd on Reddit (see here). I'm a big fan of outreach to subject experts. I'm not a big fan of articles being used in games of Internet drama tennis between angry Redditors and Tumblrists. Might be an idea if admins and others, including new page patrollers and those active on the relevant topic areas keep an eye on it all to make sure it runs productively and not too much edit warring and silliness ensues. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This sort of ideological activity makes me nervous; encouraging agenda laden people to try and tilt articles towards their POV, which is perceived as being more NPOV. The page [98] appears to link to articles which appear agenda laden; rather than encouraging editors to edit neutrally, and are here to counter-act perceived anti-feminist bias in an organized way: "What was initially an opportunity to empower marginalized voices through proactive action, now further illustrates the necessity of itself and other projects like it. By editing the Feminists Engage Wikipedia page in these ways, patriarchy is proved real. Clearly some editors of wikipedia have the very biases we are attempting to counteract with our edits." They didn't want people interested in feminism, they want feminists.

The drive also appears to conflate women editors with necessarily being interested in feminism, but it's stated in the pages that the aim is to "to get more feminist editors registered". Others state: "I am really excited to tell you about a project I am working on called Feminists Engage Wikipedia, where folks around the country sign into Wikipedia, edit certain entries and add new ones to counteract the very white straight cis able bodied western dude nature of the site." Why do we have drives to encourage people with particular ideologies? The main idea of the drive appears to be that men are sexists when they edit, so we need more feminists who are also women to counter that; rather than just encouraging women to edit in an ideology neutral way unconnected to feminism.

I think any efforts which encourage any group with a particular ideology to group together to edit, is inherently problematic, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

From the post-mortem on the coordination page it looks to me like they did some really great work and created content on subjects for which we did not previously have articles. Whatever some may think of their supposed motivations I should hope we could agree that creating missing articles on important women is a good thing. I am also unclear as to what, if any, administrative involvement was being asked for here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2013)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. The application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Hall of Fame

For those who may be interested, I have boldly created a WikiProject to collaboratively recognize Wikipedia's finest editors, which can be found at the link above. Please feel free to add your name to the list of members. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an awful idea, and you'll either end up with constant arguments about whether a given nominee is "suitable", or you'll end up with a festival of sockpuppets voting for sockmasters, serial vandals and full-blown lunatics for the lulz, along the lines of this well-intentioned trainwreck. I'd strongly suggest nipping this in the bud now, before you end up recreating Esperanza. – iridescent 2 17:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above. Was this Wikipedia:Project consulted as strongly recommended here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals? Leaky Caldron 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need another trinket for people to collect? Isn't it enough to edit for the satisfaction of improving the world's best online encyclopedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not another trinket for people to collect. I have already stated that people are not allowed to make self nominations. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Should be deleted Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another mess that should be deleted [99]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a bunch of bureaucratic junk Leaky. If someone wants to create and manage a project, they should go ahead and do it. Ryan Vesey 19:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do I run around constantly criticizing other people's ideas without even giving them a chance? If you don't like it, don't participate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who brought it here. If you don't like the feedback, don't look at it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to be criticized, don't come up with useless junk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's not that simple, ASO. Seemingly innocuous things like this can have unpredictable knock-on effects. As BMK alludes, another shiny for people to chase doesn't always lead them to good encyclopedic output. Moreover, another addition of a status symbol can mean more detrimental divisions in an already-fractured editor base. I don't know if you've read the history about Esperanza, ASO; it was before your time (and mine), but it makes for interesting reading. While it isn't a perfect analogue to this idea, it is an example of how something in this vein can start out quite innocently and end quite badly. I'm not saying that this will result in death and destruction, but there is precedent for wanting to examine it more closely before it becomes a thing. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@Ryan. As an inductee and committee member User:AutomaticStrikeout/Hall_of_Fame I see "your" point. Personally I think it's childish verging on social networking. Leaky Caldron 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• *sigh* Possibly well-intentioned, but unworkable and untenable. As such, deleted, burn in fire, salt liberally (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• How do you know it is unworkable? I haven't even gotten it going yet. As mentioned below, Editor of the Week is working fine, although that may be partly due to the fact that the people working there don't have the same mindset as the people above. This isn't hurting anyone, hence there is no call for all the vitriol being directed at someone who is trying to do something nice for other editors. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

While the comments above have been, well, colourful to say the least, I have to agree with them, I'm afraid. We already have a way of working out who the best contributors to Wikipedia are, which can be done by counting how many articles they successfully get through WP:FAC. Works for me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• If the Editor of the Week meets the most recent HOF Inductee, who curtsies to whom? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I did want to say a quick word regarding EotW without delving in to the HOF: EotW is going very well and has been largely apolitical (with the exception of a recent dispute between two editors involved, but that seems to have been resolved and has not affected the mission). If you look at the talk pages (and some have probably been archived by now) of our recipients, all were very grateful and taken aback by the fact that they received recognition for their long term dedication to excellence in article space. We have managed to avoid a bureaucracy at EotW and the process is really quite simple, and consequently the project is thriving. For what it's worth. Go Phightins! 23:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Was EotW advertised here? I have nothing against pat on the back programs in general...but these seem...nvm. --Onorem♠Dil 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• FAC counting doesn't work for me, but YMMV. NE Ent 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm sure this is well intentioned, my issue with it would be that it promotes some sort of elitism. Something along the lines of the headmaster's/School principal's favourites who consistently perform above everyone else. EotW works because it is assessed over brief periods and the names can change over time, but a HoF will progressively become dominated by the few who contribute the most, recognition of whom is a good thing but not this way. The flipside is that those on the HoF become placed on a pedestal as some sort of shining example of editor-ness. I think this will have a belittling effect on those who are casual editors not to mention the expectations that get pushed on to the HoF-ers. These would be unintended side effects that I believe could come about. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support a place where all the MMORPGers can hang out. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with those opposed to this idea. It will merely generate more controversy and conflict, which the project obviously needs less of, not more. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a sport. Jusdafax 16:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree slightly: lately this place has been not just a sport, but a bloodsport (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

a WikiColiseum perhaps?Blackmane (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I placed it on WP:MFD Secret ^account 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

There is a heavy backlog at WP:RFPP. Anyone with a mop can help to clear it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A little conisistency in editing would go a very long way

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I consult Wikipedia quite often as a starting point. Children and students are warned not to place too much credence in what is written here - inaccuracy and bias are two of the obvious dangers - but I find it useful to get an overview of a subject and to track down other web sites for further detail. So I have seen quite a few Wiki pages and again and again I am struck by how inconsistent much of the editing. I personally have been hauled over the coals for not 'sourcing'. A good example were my edits on my old school, The Oratory School in Woodcote: my entries were deleted wholesale by Wiki jobsworth for not following the rules. Yet earlier on today, when I looked up the entry on British actress Julie Goodyear, I spotted several claims and a quote about here which were 'unsourced' and had remained unchallenged for quite some time. I wasn't particularly bothered, but I did leave a comment - I didn't remove the references - to the effect that IF the various jobsworths delight in working 'the rules' are to be taken seriously and at their own valuation, the least they can do is to edit consistently. What happened? My comments was removed by a jobsworth, but the unsourced claims and quote were allowed to stand. Get a grip, chaps. If you really want to play the dedicated committee bore, at least do it properly and consistently. PP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are 4.1 million articles. There are 18.6 million registered users. There are 4.294 billion possible anonymous IPv4 addresses. Obviously the 1600 admins can't watch everything - we rely on editors like you to fix things - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is also the encyclopedia that anyone can fix (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not the administrators I am taking to task, it's the sheer bloody-minded, pettifogging inconsistency of the various editors who can spot the individual tree no bother, but are apparently oblivious to the forest as a whole. Julie Goodyear, and particularly her soap character Bet Lynch, were once houshold names and she is still very well known. Yet the glaring inconsistency in her entry remained unchallenged for a long, long time. On the other hand some idiot jobsworth who knew 'the rules' but seemingly very little else ketp deleting my additions to an entry on my school because - as I said - they were not 'sourced'. I told him I was the source, but he wasn't having that, oh no. Come on, I take our point, but you apparently don't take mine. PP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pfgpowell, if you truly had taken Bwilkins' point, you'd be busy addressing the inconsistancies you've identified. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources to discover how one cannot be one's source for one's edits. Tiderolls 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• As the poster has made it clear they are intending to issue a general complaint and not to request any administrative action I am closing this thread. If you wish to discuss such general issues (an actual proposal for what you might actually want tro do about it would also be a good idea) you may open a thread at one of the village pumps or initiate an WP:RFC for a broader dicussion of the general issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (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.

A little conisistency in editing would go a very long way

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I consult Wikipedia quite often as a starting point. Children and students are warned not to place too much credence in what is written here - inaccuracy and bias are two of the obvious dangers - but I find it useful to get an overview of a subject and to track down other web sites for further detail. So I have seen quite a few Wiki pages and again and again I am struck by how inconsistent much of the editing. I personally have been hauled over the coals for not 'sourcing'. A good example were my edits on my old school, The Oratory School in Woodcote: my entries were deleted wholesale by Wiki jobsworth for not following the rules. Yet earlier on today, when I looked up the entry on British actress Julie Goodyear, I spotted several claims and a quote about here which were 'unsourced' and had remained unchallenged for quite some time. I wasn't particularly bothered, but I did leave a comment - I didn't remove the references - to the effect that IF the various jobsworths delight in working 'the rules' are to be taken seriously and at their own valuation, the least they can do is to edit consistently. What happened? My comments was removed by a jobsworth, but the unsourced claims and quote were allowed to stand. Get a grip, chaps. If you really want to play the dedicated committee bore, at least do it properly and consistently. PP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are 4.1 million articles. There are 18.6 million registered users. There are 4.294 billion possible anonymous IPv4 addresses. Obviously the 1600 admins can't watch everything - we rely on editors like you to fix things - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is also the encyclopedia that anyone can fix (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not the administrators I am taking to task, it's the sheer bloody-minded, pettifogging inconsistency of the various editors who can spot the individual tree no bother, but are apparently oblivious to the forest as a whole. Julie Goodyear, and particularly her soap character Bet Lynch, were once houshold names and she is still very well known. Yet the glaring inconsistency in her entry remained unchallenged for a long, long time. On the other hand some idiot jobsworth who knew 'the rules' but seemingly very little else ketp deleting my additions to an entry on my school because - as I said - they were not 'sourced'. I told him I was the source, but he wasn't having that, oh no. Come on, I take our point, but you apparently don't take mine. PP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pfgpowell, if you truly had taken Bwilkins' point, you'd be busy addressing the inconsistancies you've identified. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources to discover how one cannot be one's source for one's edits. Tiderolls 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• As the poster has made it clear they are intending to issue a general complaint and not to request any administrative action I am closing this thread. If you wish to discuss such general issues (an actual proposal for what you might actually want tro do about it would also be a good idea) you may open a thread at one of the village pumps or initiate an WP:RFC for a broader dicussion of the general issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (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.

Backlog at WP:UAA

We have a bit of a backlog at WP:UAA. If some admins can please unclog that backlog, it would be appreciated. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move for bad image list

This might affect admins who deal with image vandalism etc., so I'm posting this here. It has recently become technically possible to rename MediaWiki:Bad image list, and there is currently a proposal open at its talk page to rename it to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list. Any and all comments are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Privacy regarding e-mail communications

As email sent through the Wikipedia interface is unencrypted as it is sent across the internet, is it acceptable for privacy reasons to use a TOR node when sending through the Wikipedia interface?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is prohibited from using Tor on Wikipedia. Remember that. But there's not much advantage (in fact it's probably a liability as you don't know who's sniffing you). Use HTTPS for encryption between you and Wikipedia - your mail will not be encrypted between Wikipedia and the recipient. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:TOR. Using a throwaway mail account seems to be a lot easier anyway. 80.132.71.175 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Review my action, please

I've just discovered substantial copyvios in our Knesset article, so I've reverted the content in question to its pre-copyvio state and revdeleted the 103 revisions since that time. Was revdeletion the right thing to do here, and if so, was the deletion of all 103 revisions appropriate? Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The very first criterion listed at the revision deletion policy page pertains to "blatant copyright violations", so I would definitely agree with your decision there. The only question in my mind is whether or not there was some salvageable material added within the two-year time interval from May 2011 to the present date; you may want to check that out, if you've got the time and energy. Also, someone should make sure that the article itself is up-to-date, as this was a revert that took the page back almost two years. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Kurtis, he didn't take the page 2 years back, (s)he took one section two years back. The complete extent of the changes to the section in question were minor, so the user doesn't need to worry about that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes tab in Preferences - special choices for administrators

As a new administrator, I am a little dismayed to see Recent Changes and watchlist pages filled with new buttons - a rollback button for every change and block beside every contribs. So many opportunities to do something I'd regret! This may be convenient for some tasks, but for now I can't see myself doing a rollback without first looking at the diff or blocking someone without first looking at their contributions. Moreover, multiple discussions have made it clear that many would rather use Twinkle or STiki for most rollbacks.

Proposal: Add administrator-only preferences to the Recent changes tab in Preferences that allow them to hide the block and rollback buttons. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This might be better discussed at WP:VPT, though I agree that being able to turn off these features might be a good idea (though over 5 years as an admin I've only imposed two accidental blocks - one on myself and another on an admin with an impeccable record of good behaviour!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussions at WT:Rollback seem to me to be largely people who aren't admins; I think they're trying to decide whether to request rollback or to use Twinkle. That being said, I support your proposal; the more things we can disable if we desire, the better. I won't use it, but anyone should be able to change it if possible. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the block, and I am not admin, but I did hit rollback accidentally on several occasions from my watchlist - typically if there is a notice which unfolds slowly, you think you are going to see an article and in fact you rolled back the changes in an article couple of rows above. (That said, as a global rollbacker I am hopeless - even if there is such interface, I would probably continue having rollback links on the watchlist).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose WP:VPT would be a good place to discuss this, but first I'd like to know how the users of these features feel about allowing them to be hidden (although I can't think of any disadvantage). I'm not sure what the appropriate follow-up would be - a feature request? RockMagnetist (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Clicking 'rollback' by mistake happens to the best of us, and is the most minor issue imaginable (as long as you realise what you have done and self-revert!). You cannot 'acidentally' block on your Watchlist; if you click 'Block' it takes you through to a confirmation page where you choose length / reason etc., so no need to worry about doing that. GiantSnowman 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case the buttons are not a hazard, but still a nuisance if I'm only going to use them by mistake. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence the reason many admins have an alternate non-admin account (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As Snowman says, blocking takes more than one click, but I would welcome a facility to disable rollback: since starting to use an iPad with its very sensitive touchscreen I have more than once done one inadvertently. and I am not confident that I would always notice. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to remove all rollback links from your watchlist, add the following code to your common.css page:

.mw-rollback-link {
display:none
}

Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The code I got when I looked into it was .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none} which only removes it from my watchlist, not other places it appears. Monty₈₄₅ 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought JohnCD et al wanted it disabled on all special pages like Special:Contributions and not just on the watchlist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess we have even more choices now! I used the general one and I'm happy with the result. Thank you, Reaper Eternal. Is there a code for the block button? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

By using the code .mw-special-Watchlist .mw-usertoollinks {display:none;} in my vector.css I managed to perform the awesome feat of removing the talk, contribs, and block links for every user that appeared on my watchlist, but unfortunately it looks like that is as much fine-tuning as css gives us. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be an amusing situation - an administrator with less control than an ordinary editor! My feeling is that administrators are not chosen for their CSS skills, so if the hide options are desirable, they should be made easy. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of Nick-D, I have started a discussion at WP:VPT. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Rfc review & closure

Would an uninvolved administrator review & close this Rfc? It's been open for over a month now. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Humanpublic

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.

---

In the last months, the behavior of Humanpublic has been discussed repeatedly here. I won't include all the diffs of his long history of uncivil behavior as they can be found in previous AN and ANI discussions about Humanpublic, so I'm focusing on his displayed arrogance towards admins as well as his latest behavior.

• Already in mid February, an admin gave him a final warning for his behavior [100]. As can be seen, Humanpublic did not care one bit [101] and followed up by this message to the admin who warned him [102].
• A week later, after a discussion about Humanpublic's behavior at ANI, another admin issued the following final warning over his behavior [103]. Again, Humanpublic displayed his disrespect for the admin who warned him [104], [105].
• In early March, Humanpublic's pal Strangesad was blocked for edit warring, which caused Humanpublic to throw a rage, go straight to the article to repeat the edit warring for which Strangesad was blocked [106]. This was against the expressed consensus on the talk page, the following diff is the only contribution Humanpublic bothered to make at the talk page [107]. To avoid a block, he then decided to leave Wikipedia, again displaying his disrespect for admins [108]. At that point three more admins concluded that Humanpublic was not fit for Wikipedia [109], [110] and that a topic ban would be necessary if Humanpublic came back [111].
• Now, Humanpublic is back and behaves exactly like before, now even edit warring over both articles [112], [113] and talk pages [114], [115].
• So in short, Humanpublic's long history of disruptive behavior (not included here as it's been the topic of the discussions that led to the previous "final" warnings) and lack of civility led to a final warning by an admin in mid February. He expressed his contempt and continued, leading to a final warning by another admin in late February, to which he reacted with more contempt and continued until declaring that he leaves Wikipedia, upon which three more admins concluded that he was not suitable for editing Wikipedia, and that a topic ban would be necessary if he returns. It's no surprise that he returned quickly, so based on the above I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Christianity and Argument from silence.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I opposed this the last time, and I still think we can deal with him, but it's really becoming annoying. This assessment nails it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the number of, er, "factual errors" in that might exceed Jeppiz's record. The "admin warning" is not from an admin, it is a template dumped on my Talk page by an editor with a historiy of reverting me, and who was warned on ANI for trying to censor me by forcibly archiving a discussion. I did not "throw a rage" and edit the article, I went there and reverted an edit that Jeppiz had previously made. THere was no concensus for any kind of topic ban, although Jeppiz has "forum shopped" and fished for that endlessly on ANI. My reverts to Argument from Silence were intended to undo a "BRD" edit by another editor.

Jeppiz does nothing here but complain about editors on AN and ANI and forum shop 'till he drops. I really think Jeppiz is the one who needs the topic ban. Humanpublic (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic's claim above that I "do nothing here but complain about editors on AN and ANI" is unfortunately typical of his tactic to always try to shift the blame. I've been on Wikipedia for years, and Humanpublic and his pal Strangesad are the only two users I can remember bringing to AN. Here are my 250 latest edits [116]. Some of them have been on AN about Humanpublic and Strangesad, but the overwhelming majority are not related to either AN or ANI. That being the case, I consider Humanpublic's quite blatant lie about me above as yet another example of his behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

About 2 weeks ago, Humanpublic requested that their account be vanished. Since vanished accounts are expected to refrain from previous behavior patterns, they have effectively stated their intent to leave these articles, which would make a topic ban unnecessary. However, since making that request they have continued to engage in contentious editing, so it is possible that they do not understand the vanishing process or have changed their mind about vanishing. Humanpublic, would you please reply to the message I placed on your talk page and clarify the situation? -- LWG ^talk 18:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support wider topic ban on articles and talk pages relating to faith and religion in general per WP:NOTHERE. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC) - Ammend - after further investigation, support indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, Seb (who comments above) just showed up to revert me without comment on Talk. And previously Smeat showed up to revert me, without comment on Talk. Both following me there from Jesus, for absolutely no reason other than to revert me without discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's well-established that this editor has been consistently disruptive, based on the paper trail cited above. I guess the questions is: what basis do we have to expect any sort of improvement in his/her behavior? If the answer is "none", then I think the right decision here is pretty clear. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You think wrong. The "paper trail" above is provided by an "opponent" in content disputes, who has cherry picked what he wants, often distorting (or lying) about the context, and omitted all of the context (much of it due to his own provocations). Here is a link I referred to [117], the others are on ANI. I don't know what policy there is on following people around from article to article, but I find it utterly disruptive and antagonistic. AND, I would like an explanation of what rule, exactly, I violated since returning to editing. Humanpublic (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask if a policy or guideline applies to edits like this [118] and [119] in which an editor who opposed me on one article Jesus, and was involved in ANIs with me, follows me to other articles just to revert me? Which Jeppiz also did here [120]. Jeppiz is complaining about my recent edits to Argument from Silence here, but he's never actually said anything about them on the Talk page. Can I get some sort of "involvement" ban from these editors? Make someone else revert and complain about me, for once. Humanpublic (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support at least a topic ban if not block per WP:NOTHERE. User is here for one objective and it's not to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per those above. — Ched :  ?  19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Policy-violation since I returned to editing, with diffs, please. I've edited exactly one religious Talk page. Humanpublic (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're volunteering to avoid areas that have caused you problems, then I'm fine with that as well. I'm not really inclined to go digging for things to build some sort of "case" against you though. — Ched :  ?  20:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just like saying you're unwilling to make the case that he should be topic-banned. Can you name an actual rule that's been broken in the last week? 2 weeks? 3 weeks? Strangesad (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose full block, Neutral on topic ban. Humanpublic's contributions in non-contentious areas have all been constructive. -- LWG ^talk 20:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You wanna be his mentor? many people have tried explaining stuff to him... to no avail... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

LWG, I agree. That's why I proposed a topic ban from religion rather than a full block.Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

LWG: He has 20 article space edits to non-contentious areas. I think you should read WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer-term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia")." [emphasis mine].--v/r - TP 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those 20 edits make up nearly half of his total article-space contributions. To give up on Humanpublic completely is unwarranted. -- LWG ^talk 03:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Jeppiz has provided plenty of evidence - this user is either unwilling or unable to work with others in these contentious areas. (Which is especially bad considering they deal with the already touchy subject of religion.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. HP has edited one article in March: Argument from silence, which isn't religious. He explained his two edits there on the Talk page. They didn't violate policy. His only other edits in several weeks were to the Talk page of Jesus, none of which violated policy. Ched's refusal, above, to actually back up his comments is disturbing. Strangesad (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  Comment That is not correct. First, HP has edited Resurrection of Jesus in March [121], and it's certainly a religious article. Second, HP has edit warred at the talk page of Jesus, repeatedly tearing up an archive [122], [123]. Third, the fact that HP is back at Talk:Jesus is enough. It was suggested already in early March that he would be topic banned after he had ignored repeated last warnings, but he ducked it by requesting vanishing. That implies that he does not return to the same articles, and certainly not in less than two weeks.

  Humanpublic's edits to this article are specifically related to his attempts use the "argument from silence" to promote his POV in articles about Jesus. It is not independent. Paul B (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  [124][125] Humanpublic makes it clear he is not talking about the article. Which means, he is in violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject", which makes him disruptive. He's there to argue that scholars that support Jesus are not scholars while acknowledging he doesn't have a source for that claim because he doesn't intend to write it in the article. That was yesterday. Humanpublic is he to express his POV on religion and battle an opposing POV. He's not here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those diffs show a discussion about what sources are required for what edits. The edits to Argument from silence have nothing to do with Jesus. The diffs of HP unhatting a discussion he wanted to continue do not show edit-warring. This looks like a lynch mob. How rare around here. Strangesad (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment That is blatantly false. Humanpublic only started editing Argument from silence in reaction to how it is used in articles about Jesus. This is the first time Humanpublic discusses Argument from silence [126], only after finding it in articles on Jesus did he do his first edit to the actual article about Argument from silence [127]. His editos to Argument from silence are thus just part of his push for what he is convinced is the WP:TRUTH about Jesus. As already said, he is not here to build an encyclopedia.Jeppiz (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are comments about motive. That's disruptive and a violation of WP:AGF. The edits are not about Christianity. In the future, please comment on edits, not editors. Strangesad (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand WP:AGF. While certainly true in most cases, it's quite natural that in a discussion on AN about a possible topic ban, the motives for a user to edit a certain article can be relevant. Outside AN and ANI, WP:AGF is very relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Could I ask the people directly involved in this dispute (on all sides) to step back from commenting, so that we can actually get community input? MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. I can understand the confusion because many people see Wikipedia as similar in nature to web forums where people exchange ideas and struggle to have their opinion dominate. However, that attitude is not compatible with the fact that this is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. One of the diffs above (diff) shows a classic violation of NOTFORUM two days ago. Would someone who opposes a topic ban please provide evidence of helpful contributions in the area. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support a top ban on Christianity-related topics. I think the evidence shows that his conduct has been pretty disruptive. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone name the recent rule-breaking, with diffs? And document the alleged disruption across a large swath of "Christianity-related articles"? There is not a single documented case of disruption of any recency. There is a lot of Jeppiz's usual distortion and lawyering. Strangesad (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for recent policy violations with diffs. Also, still wondering why editing the Talk page of one article related to Christianity equates to topic ban on all religious articles. Johnuniq. that diff is misleading, as it omits the context--I responded to someone else's comment about disputing the divine. And it's hardly something you'd ban people over anyway. Humanpublic (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As Humanpublic expressedly asks me to comment on his policy violations I write this comment, though I agree with MastCell that this is not the venue for Humanpublic, Strangesad and myself. I've already provided diffs of edit warring [128], [129]. What is more, the fact that you're back editing Christianity-related articles is enough. I cite from my proposal for a topic ban "At that point three more admins concluded that Humanpublic was not fit for Wikipedia [130], [131] and that a topic ban would be necessary if Humanpublic came back [132]. Nothing you've done since you came back (if an absence of less than two weeks can even count) is in itself enough for me to propose a topic ban, true. However, you have been consistently disruptive at Christianity-related articles since 2012. You had several "final warnings" and you've disregarded them all. That is why it was already suggested (by an uninvolved admin) that you should be topic banned if you came back. You're back, you're editing the same articles, you're edit warring at Argument from silence and you're even edit warring at the talk page of Jesus.[133], [134] even though several others have informed you that Wikipedia is not a forum. So the proposed topic ban is not based exclusively on your edits in the last days, but on your whole history at Wikipedia. Taking a break for less that two weeks (and doing so in this way [135]) does not give you a clean sheet, especially not when you return to continue as before.Jeppiz (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't ask you to repeat what you already said--and distorted--once. The first two diffs do not show edit warring--and if they did you would have to be equally concerned with History2007, was adding material and mathematically must have been edit-warring if I was. You are not so concerned.
• Your comment about prior calls for a topic ban is distorted. You implied that 3 admins called for me to be topic banned and that I am not fit for "wikipedia." Actually, one admin suggested that, and the phrase in question was "not a good fit" and the context was my own decision to try and leave.
• Neither of the cases you describe as "edit warring" meet the definition of edit-warring. The cases of "forum" you keep citing do not meet the definition of "forum" They are my responses to topics or edits raised by others on the Talk page. You have completely distorted the context, misrepresented the edits, and essentially been on a witch-hunt for months.

• This the fourth time you--and no one else--have proposed a topic ban. You did it twice on ANI, got no response, and switched to this forum. Your first edit to Jesus was to revert me. Your first edit to Christ myth theory was to revert me. Seb's edits to those articles and Argument from Silence have exclusively been to revert me--with almost no discussion in Talk. You have complained about my edits on Argument from Silence--and not once have you made a single comment on Talk. Nothing compels you to follow me around to articles that interest me, and revert me, and complain about me to administrators. If you don't like how I edit LEAVE ME ALONE. Humanpublic (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. A topic ban is a waste of the community's time. I see nothing worth salvaging here. The evidence in support of HP not being here for anything but to push an agenda is somewhere between substantial and overwhelming.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no agenda, except disgust for judgemental people. Humanpublic (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Jeppiz has provided a lot of evidence that Humanpublic is not here to build an encyclopedia and is pushing an agenda. He is unable to work with others in the contentious areas. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, or preferably a block. Although Jeppiz needs to check who is an admin and who isn't, the diffs at the top of this section indicate to me that Humanpublic hasn't been able to learn how to edit in a collaborative environment, and that this pattern of behaviour isn't about to change in the near future. This looks like an issue across all articles, not just religious ones, so I would prefer a block to a topic ban. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all faith and religion articles broadly construed.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Out of the edit count for Humanpublic, 17% is edits to articles - a total of 49 edits. The rest is talk, user talk and administrative notice boards. After just 15 edits, he tried to modify the lead of Jesus! Of edits to that article, at least 5 are attempts to add a statement that is taken out of context from its source. That it is out of context is clear from the discussion further down the page at Jesus#Ancient_sources_and_archeology. Add to that a few reverts and several edits to related articles ... I don't even need to read the talk page discussions to conclude that Humanpublic is stubbornly pushing a point of view and causing a remarkable amount of disruption for such a small number of edits. --RockMagnetist (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 March 2013‎ (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.

problems creating an account

Why doesn't the user name work for me. Where do I start? Every name I come up with . The text says: the name has been used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.143 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It's a very good idea to create an account. My first thought about your problem, is that when the text says, a name has been used, it actually may have been used. There are currently over 18 million accounts on English Wikipedia. So just be creative and original when choosing a new name. You may choose a multi word name. Please ask again if you keep having a problem. If you mention a name you have tried, we can check whether there currently is a user with that name. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a very common problem for new users registering on many different types of websites. Wikipedia is about ten years old now so the chances of using some names is going to be difficult.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of ideas: You could add some random numbers before or after your preferred name, but the existing editor with the "root" name could make a complaint if it's too close, or if you edit in similar areas. You could also choose a random, nonsensical username (user:TreeWizardBaseball is available, for example), and then after a few months of good, productive editing, you can request to usurp another existing username that is more to your liking, as long as it has been abandoned by the original owner. So it might be worth checking the activity of the Username(s) you like to see if that might be a possibility. Ultimately, the name is not as important as simply being registered. See WP:USURP for more info. Ditch ∝ 21:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Evangp unblock request

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.

---

Resolved

 – unblocked per consensus -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Evangp (talk · contribs) has appealed his block via UTRS, citing the standard offer. He claims not to have used any alternate accounts in the last six months, and would like to edit constructively on the subject of concert venues and related pages. A check by User:DeltaQuad revealed no current sockpuppets from Evangp's current range. I'm bringing the issue here for community discussion as per usual. I've also reenabled Evangp's talkpage access for the duration of this discussion, and will copy over any statements he wishes to make; please do check his talkpage in case I miss anything, though. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, while I didn't find any active socks on the range he was using, this does not mean that he doesn't have more than one range and have socks over there. CU can't prove a negative. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I found this message on Evangp's talk page: "Please unblock me. I promise to be good and edit constructively. I don't think it would be fair to block me forever."

Unblock. By the standard offer. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock. Two years is long enough and I believe in second chances. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per the standard offer. One last chance to edit Wikipedia constructively doesn't hurt by a lot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock — As I look over Evangp's contribution history and block log, I get the sense that he is relatively young. He generally contributed in good-faith during his first period of activity, but was lacking in a basic understanding of notability, and was thus unable to assert the significance of the subjects for which he'd created stubs. After numerous warnings, he was eventually blocked for three months, which was subsequently made indefinite for evasion through sockpuppetry. My impression of him now is that he has matured substantially since 2010, and I would not be surprised if he has come to possess the competence needed to become a very productive contributor. I strongly support giving him another chance. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Part of "Standard offer" is, Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. It would help if Evangp could address the specific issues that led to the block - a) an understanding of the key requirements for an article (hint: read Wikipedia:Your first article), b) a promise to be civil, c) a promise to never sock again. I don't think indefinite blocks should be lifted just because someone says "I promise to be good". WP:SO says, administrators are not required to unblock you, especially if you do not provide any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Wikipedia for six months. You should still provide a clear reason why you should be unblocked. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside; are we doing CU's without a specific reason now? That happened with MF this week, and caused rather a fuss. The CU here looks like it was fishing. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry, per WP:NOTFISHING. We know that Evangp has engaged in sockpuppetry in the past, and by saying that he's not done it in the last six months, he admits that he did it at one time. In such a situation, it's absolutely appropriate to perform a CU on him: "trust but verify". Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends what one considers "credible evidence" - in this case, the fact that someone socked 6 months ago seems to be the only consideration - I don't think anyone has produced any evidence to indicate socking since then, and the CU can only see back a few months, so that 'evidence' (that they once socked) doesn't have any bearing on whether they've socked within the time that can be checked. I don't necessarily think that it is wrong to CU people who have socked in the past, but I do think the policy needs to be clearer to avoid future DRAMA about whether a CU is appropriate. To me, the current procedural policy of evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry means that there must be something within the period we can actually check. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, this isn't a great place to discuss this, so I'll post on Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Fishing? instead. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock per above - I had the pleasure of doing one earlier, I'll let someone else have the honors on this one. — Ched :  ?  19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• note: I can understand that some folks would have reservations about comments like "... STICK YOUR NOSE IN YOUR BUTT AND SNIFF !!". I'm not going to strike my "support unblock" just yet - but I did leave them a suggestion on their talk. — Ched :  ?  20:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I humbly request that we wait for some response from the user, before taking action. A short delay isn't going to make much difference. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I too would prefer to wait until we have a statement from the user that addresses the behaviour that led to the block. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• copied from user's talk page by — Ched :  ?  08:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) diff

I realize I've made some immature comments in the past. I've learned to be more civil and understanding over the past few years. As I've said I promise to be more constructive with my editing. Evangp (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And of course I promise never to sock again.

Great. I now support unblocking. Evangp, please remember to use reliable sources in your future edits. Best wishes. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• bump — Ched :  ?  11:05, 21 March 2013 (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.

Hideki Tojo

Resolved

 – -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The article Hideki Tojo was disappeared after User: Anthony Bradbury moved the page from Hideki Tōjō to Hideki Tojo per RM. Please help to resolve the problem. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is backlogged

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? RNealK (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions about removing autopatrolled status

Could someone please clarify for me under what circumstances an editor's autopatrolled status can be removed, and how recent violations need to be to justify removing someone's autopatrolled flag? Prioryman (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even seen firm rules. But I'd say any [single copyright violation, unsourced BLP, or poorly sourced negative BLP], or [a couple of poorly sourced BLPs], or [several unsourced or poorly sourced articles or promotional articles].--v/r - TP 13:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove the autopatrolled status of an administrator? Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called Arbcom.--v/r - TP 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So that's a "No" then. Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is technically trivial to debundle the right. Whether that would gain consensus on the other hand... Crazynas ^t 14:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it would be technically trivial to unbundle all the user rights, but politically unacceptable. The point is though that in this specific instance a non-admin would be treated more harshly than an admin, as I doubt anyone believes that an administrator would be defrocked for a single instance of copyright violation, or poor sourcing of a BLP. Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically trivial, politically improbable, but the real impossibility is getting a dev to actually take the time to do it. I would hope that any given administrator would have more sense than that but I'm positive someone would dispute the sense of administrators (to include fellow administrators who would dispute the sense of me even continuing this discussion).--v/r - TP 15:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much correct. Of course, even if the right was unbundled, autopatrolled can be granted or removed by admins, including to themselves, so I don't really know how that would work. I mean, technically, edit filter manager is also not part of the admin bundle (and incidentally, it's a much more potentially destructive right than autopatrolled), but since admins have the ability to grant or revoke it, they can grant it to themselves at will. disclaimer: I've done this myself for EFM. So, if autopatrolled were to be unbundled (which on its face is a reasonable idea; I'm not sure I want it for myself, for example), then the userright that's able to grant or revoke it should also be looked at. TL;DR: It's more complicated than it may appear at first. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't regranting oneself EFM (or hypothetical autopatrolled) after it had been removed by another sysop be considered wheel warring?Crazynas ^t 15:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, not wheel-warring: wheel-warring is defined as the third mover (i.e. in a sequence of remove-restore-remove, only the last removal is technically wheel-warring). It would be considered using an admin tool while involved, though. I kinda changed points in the middle of my post there, so bear with me. What I'm really trying to get at is this: if we don't trust someone with autopatrolled themselves, we probably shouldn't trust them with the ability to grant or revoke autopatrolled, either. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Put it this way. You granted yourself EFM. User:'Hypothetical sysop' sees that you just instituted a (hypothetical) edit filter that disallows all edits containing the letter 'e'. That user stops the edit filter (of course) and removes your EFM right. Now if you restore your EFM that would be considered wheel warring right? I understand where you're coming from on the basis that autopatrolled is inherited, so removing it is only the first action, but restoring it yourself after it was removed makes you involved. (although by that standard shouldn't it be policy that sysops be required to go through the same process to get EFM that every other user does?) I think, with autopatrolled and EFM, that we can say, we trust this user with the bit but their articles need occasional review (or they really shouldn't be setting edit filters). That is a different standard then saying they don't have the clue to not grant themselves a right there is no consensus they have. Regards, Crazynas ^t 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather similar to an administrator unblocking him or herself I'd have thought, which seems to be frowned on. But them we're only talking about the paltry user rights afforded to regular editors, so who cares. Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@Crazynas:like I say, it would certainly be a violation of involved (just as unblocking yourself would be), so it's still not allowed; I'm just not sure it meets the stricter definition of wheel warring. The difference is kinda academic, though.

@Malleus: I care... Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that any single standard privilege associated with adminship is ever taken away. Either you're an admin or you're not. Thus, in some instances, different standards will apply to admins than to non-admins, depending on the privilege. (There is also a distinction between the permissions that automatically come with adminship but can also be accorded to non-admins and those tools that belong only to admins.) That said, when there is written guidance on when a right should be removed, there's still usually discretion on when it should be removed. When there's no written guidance, there's probably - and unfortunately IMO - even more discretion. So, TP's view on removal of autopatrolled status is TP's view. Whether there would be a consensus in support of it, I don't know (I have no opinion at this point), but if an admin removed the right from a user, then the user could always ask for a review of that removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I did preempt my opinion with "But I'd say...."--v/r - TP 15:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I knew you weren't expressing your view as gospel. I just picked on you because you were bold enough to respond. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

But the point remains, you're suggesting a harsher treatment for non-admins than for admins. I rest my case. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Malleus. I'm not a dev and the question wasn't about administrators.--v/r - TP 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The question was about removing autopatrolled status, which it's now quite evident can only be done to non-administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Although standards overall are a bit murky, that's probably true for all permissions that are not admin-only tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bugzilla would be where you can go to fix that.--v/r - TP 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a software fix that's required, it's a fix to WP's ossified culture, and that's never going to happen. MalleusFatuorum 15:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well now you're getting into words too big for my puny administrator mind so I'm going to go find something else to do than argue here. Maybe I can find a constructive FA writer to block to make me feel better.--v/r - TP 16:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ossified culture is when a lab culture becomes contaminated with a fossilized Wikipedia bug. This generally happens cross-space, i.e., a bug from admin space is redirected to a bug in non-admin-space. The usual remedy is to quarantine the lab culture until a proper tool (a special tool that is found only in alternate realities) is found to nuke it. (Nuking is different from blocking and banning - see WP:NUKE, which I didn't know even existed until I typed it just now and it was blue - I was expecting it to be red.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the 'bug' is one line change, that the devs most certainly won't do, unless there is consensus for it here first. Crazynas^t 16:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Objection, argumentative. Objection sustained. The jury is instructed to disregard. (The jury subsequently reached a verdict in favor of ... well, it's not clear whom it was in favor of ... what are we talking about again?) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can think of more than one administrator who might still be an administrator had they not ever had the autopatrolled user right, and no reason to suppose that every vandal fighter ought to be granted that right automatically at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Malleus has a very good point here. There is really no reason Admins should always have "autopatrolled" (in fact, I didn't realize that they did). I can see why rollback would be default for admins (one would hope all admins are capable of telling vandalism from non-vandalism), but this seems like a different situation. Since article creation isn't a prerequisite for adminship, and some admins have little experience with it, there's really no reason to assume that all admins are necessarily competent at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, we have all of the rights that can be granted non-admins. Malleus is singling out one right in particular. The fact that a particular admin may not be "competent" to take advantage of that right doesn't mean that they shouldn't have it. The idea is that an admin is trusted to act competently or not act. I have no experience with the right. I don't use it. If I wanted to use it, I'd have to figure out how it should be used responsibly. That's my burden. Not conferring the right on an admin is a structural change and I'm not even sure how such a change would be agreed upon or what the forum would be to discuss it and implement it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

From memory, I think that autopatrolled is only handed out to editors who've created 70 or 80 articles, which would surely rule out the majority of administrators. Why the difference? Why do administrators need autopatrolled? Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bbb23 I see what you're saying, and off the top of my head I don't know of any admins who are abusing the right. (I never patrol newpages though.) But I think the structural change would be a good idea, and it might be worthwhile to pursue that option. I guess this isn't the right forum though, maybe Wikipedia_talk:Administrators would be better? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I could give you the names of a few who've abused it, and I'm sure if you cast your mind back a few of those names will occur to you as well. In general this notion that admins are automatically given every right that can be granted to non-admins is patently ridiculous, but it's institutionally entrenched, and no amount of discussion anywhere is going to change that world view. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals) would probably be the best place to propose it. As far as I can tell, there's no technical reason autopatrolled couldn't be separate from the standard admin flags like the edit filter manager flag is. 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, I'm getting confused. I didn't realize there were some rights that can be granted non-admins but that admins don't automatically get. Is there a list somewhere, not of admin-only tools, but of those non-admin rights that an admin automatically gets? There may be one, but I don't know where it is. When I look at my rights, all it says is "administrator", which is not very illuminating. Also, it seems weird that I can grant someone else edit filter manager rights but I don't have it myself. And, as long as I'm on a roll here, why do I automatically get autopatrolled permission but not edit filter manager permission? Was there some decision made about who gets what and why? Makes me dizzy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User access levels#Table has some of that info. 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And with such pretty colors, too. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be proposing nothing, anywhere, as the idea of removing any admin rights would go nowhere. Added to which, removing a right that admins could easily grant themselves should they choose could only be a Pyrrhic victory at best. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a set criteria for users having autopatrolled status. According to Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, new page patrol is mainly used by users browsing Special:Newpages so new pages can be checked to make sure they don't fall into Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. One would hope that admins aren't going to create pages that would be speedily deleted for the typical reasons, like copyright violations, non-notable bands or personalities, kids writing articles about themselves (like Ethan Phenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), pure vandalism, or just general crap. Now, if we're appointing admins who don't know how to write their first articles, that could be a problem. Given that passing an RFA seems to be as difficult as obtaining sainthood, though, I don't see that happening. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

But they do Elkman, and they have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Pyrrhic or not, I think this is an idea worth acting on, so I've proposed it at VPP. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Baring my inadequacies - who here knows about histmerging?

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.

---

Okay, I need some help here. I'm currently ambassadoring a course with the Wikipedia Education Program, and a slight problem has arisen which I'm not confident enough to solve on my own.

Basically, a number of students have copied material from their user sandboxes into mainspace Wikipedia articles in the last 24 hours - which wouldn't be a problem, except that in most cases the sandboxes had multiple, significant edits from more than one user. To retain attribution, it seems to me that the sandboxes' edit histories need to be merged into the article histories (this would also make the job of the course instructor substantially easier when it comes to marking).

Frankly, histmerging gives me the heebie-jeebies: despite many, many rereadings of the page I'm still not convinced I get how it works. If I take a crack at it myself, I'll probably cock up spectacularly, lose everyone's work, accidentally desysop myself, delete the Main Page and block Jimbo in the process. If you have a decent understanding of how the history merging process operates, I'd really appreciate it if you could drop me a line on my talkpage so that we can look at what needs to be done. Many thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Determine which versions of which pages belong in the history of the target. Note that histmerge isn't always an option - if a page is created by concatenating separate pages, then there'e no way to histmerge. It can only work if there is a clear sequence of pages, when someone copy-and-paste-ed each one to the next.
2. Go to each page in turn, delete the page (CSD G6), and restore the revisions which need to be histmerged into the final target. (Skip for pages where all revisions are needed).
3. One at a time, move the pages to the target. As an admin, you can have the move target deleted automatically when moving a page. If the source page has been anything but a redirect since the copy-and-paste move, you may want to not leave a redirect (also something admins can do).
4. Delete the final version of the target page.
5. Restore the relevant revisions for the history of the current page.
6. If any revisions deleted in step 2 are possibly still relevent, restore them.

I hope this answers your questions here. See what I just did with Wealth condensation and Wealth concentration. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thnaks to Od Mishehu and Someguy1221, I reckon I get it. That was so much more comprehensible than the content of WP:HISTMERGE... Thanks to you both; feel free to close this thread. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:31, 22 March 2013 (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.

TAFI on Main page

Bumping thread for 10 days. Ushau97 ^talk 17:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Main Page deployment to finalize adding Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. This is just an announcement for all admins so that nobody is left out of the discussion. --Ushau97 ^talk 17:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic

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.

---

Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([136]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I just don't want to cause too much drama here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [137], [138]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
          • FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
                • It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• SupportOppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC). I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• personal preference: Wikipedia:Standard offer — Ched :  ?  18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Acoma Magic's comment

Sockpuppet blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - This is Acoma Magic. Sorry for being late, been busy and I don't check the talk page of AM often. Before you all get menstrual, I assume this was an invite - [139] and since my AM account can't edit its own talk page I may as well comment here. I don't know if the community ban and standard offer are mutually exclusive options. It doesn't matter because they are both shit policies anyway as the community ban does nothing and the standard offer wastes 6 months of good editing time for those that obey it and rewards skilful sock puppets that don't. Who came up with these? Didn't anybody point out that they were stupid at the proposal discussion? Anywho... as I read Wikipedia almost everyday, I can't resist improving an article that I find a flaw in so the standard offer isn't possible. Would a restriction to 1 revert for 6 months be suitable? Bootore (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Absolutely not, especially for someone who seems to refuse to acknowledge virtually any relevent policies you're breaking. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think you may be assuming that, as I frequently reference policies and try to follow them wherever possible. I only have problems with edit warring and socking, which my proposal would solve. Also, regarding your edit at the above section, I'm trying to follow policy and act constructively with this proposal. Rutgut (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC) If the policies are bad, then it would seem that you might want to be a part of the community and lobby to change them, that is, if you actually care about building an encyclopedia. As it stands, you're not in a advantageous position to negotiate a better offer, given your history and the attitude that you're displaying here. If I were in your shoes, and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I would start by admitting that I was wrong, committing to not repeat the same behaviors and I would apologize to the community for wasting their time chasing after my socks. - MrX 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's much better, as a 1R restriction will piss me off a lot. I admit that edit warring is a problem and the 1R restriction will prevent that behaviour. I apologise to most (possibly all) of the people that have spent time that was related to my socks. The reason I say most is that I don't agree with the very selective interpretation of what a revert is that got me blocked and how the three reverter got off fine and therefore I offer no apology to those involved in that who subsequently spent time related to my socks. Rutgut (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Per this suggestion - [140] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Help us to help you: → unblock ticket request system - MrX 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I tried three times but I got this message every go: "A database error occured when attempting to process your request: Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know if that's a good idea, but I think AM is disrupting the discussion again. Not good. Would a block on him be a good idea or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think we usually let blocked users participate in discussions of which they are the subject. AM will either successfully get (temporarily) unblocked through UTRS or will have to wait for a helpful admin to see this. Of course, creating sockpuppets to join a discussion is usually frowned upon, but hell, why not go for broke! - MrX 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I am not sure if that's a good idea, but we'll see what we can do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I understand it was you who opened the recent SPI and my above comment was referring to AM. And to clarify, no personal attack was intended on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New editor at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous

A new editor has taken up the position that Govgovgov (a now-blocked Acoma Magic sock) was putting in the discussion at Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous#Specific sentence. I would appreciate input on the editorial question being raised in that section as blocked editors certainly can be right. Attention might also want to be devoted to the question of whether the new editor is a sock or not - about which I express no opinion. I will note this post in the t:HA discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The new editor shot himself in the foot and is now blocked as a sock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 24 March 2013 (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.

ANI

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 can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [141].

I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [142], but that was reverted [143].

I asked why it was reverted [144], and that was reverted too [145]. And again [146] [147] and again [148] [149].

Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.

So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis ^(talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of 88.104.27.2

I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWG ^talk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with 88.104.27.2. There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to 88.104.27.2. At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If 88.104.27.2 had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. 88.104.27.2 was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.

And people wonder why Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention? Kurtis ^(talk) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (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.

Accountability

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.

---

Thanks for unblocking.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.

The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [150] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [151], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [152].

A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.

B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.

Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [153].

I asked BW to explain the block [154] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive [155]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [156]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.

BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.221 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWG ^talk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (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.

Harassment

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.

---

If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)

I asked for the block reason here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last of those requests was just reverted [157] as "Rmv trolling". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this "editor" has yet to even ADVISE me that they had reported me here to AN. Seems to fit the pattern - the "rules" don't apply to them - only the made-up ones of their apply to others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad, sorry; done [158]. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not very nice to call someone "incompetent, a dick, a TROLL". If anyone can show me where the block has been explained, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd like a straight answer to my straight questions, viz. "Why did you block me? Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings?". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (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.

Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic

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.

---

Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([159]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I just don't want to cause too much drama here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [160], [161]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
          • FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
                • It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• SupportOppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC). I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• personal preference: Wikipedia:Standard offer — Ched :  ?  18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Acoma Magic's comment

Sockpuppet blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - This is Acoma Magic. Sorry for being late, been busy and I don't check the talk page of AM often. Before you all get menstrual, I assume this was an invite - [162] and since my AM account can't edit its own talk page I may as well comment here. I don't know if the community ban and standard offer are mutually exclusive options. It doesn't matter because they are both shit policies anyway as the community ban does nothing and the standard offer wastes 6 months of good editing time for those that obey it and rewards skilful sock puppets that don't. Who came up with these? Didn't anybody point out that they were stupid at the proposal discussion? Anywho... as I read Wikipedia almost everyday, I can't resist improving an article that I find a flaw in so the standard offer isn't possible. Would a restriction to 1 revert for 6 months be suitable? Bootore (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Absolutely not, especially for someone who seems to refuse to acknowledge virtually any relevent policies you're breaking. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think you may be assuming that, as I frequently reference policies and try to follow them wherever possible. I only have problems with edit warring and socking, which my proposal would solve. Also, regarding your edit at the above section, I'm trying to follow policy and act constructively with this proposal. Rutgut (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC) If the policies are bad, then it would seem that you might want to be a part of the community and lobby to change them, that is, if you actually care about building an encyclopedia. As it stands, you're not in a advantageous position to negotiate a better offer, given your history and the attitude that you're displaying here. If I were in your shoes, and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I would start by admitting that I was wrong, committing to not repeat the same behaviors and I would apologize to the community for wasting their time chasing after my socks. - MrX 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's much better, as a 1R restriction will piss me off a lot. I admit that edit warring is a problem and the 1R restriction will prevent that behaviour. I apologise to most (possibly all) of the people that have spent time that was related to my socks. The reason I say most is that I don't agree with the very selective interpretation of what a revert is that got me blocked and how the three reverter got off fine and therefore I offer no apology to those involved in that who subsequently spent time related to my socks. Rutgut (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Per this suggestion - [163] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Help us to help you: → unblock ticket request system - MrX 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I tried three times but I got this message every go: "A database error occured when attempting to process your request: Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know if that's a good idea, but I think AM is disrupting the discussion again. Not good. Would a block on him be a good idea or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think we usually let blocked users participate in discussions of which they are the subject. AM will either successfully get (temporarily) unblocked through UTRS or will have to wait for a helpful admin to see this. Of course, creating sockpuppets to join a discussion is usually frowned upon, but hell, why not go for broke! - MrX 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I am not sure if that's a good idea, but we'll see what we can do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I understand it was you who opened the recent SPI and my above comment was referring to AM. And to clarify, no personal attack was intended on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New editor at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous

A new editor has taken up the position that Govgovgov (a now-blocked Acoma Magic sock) was putting in the discussion at Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous#Specific sentence. I would appreciate input on the editorial question being raised in that section as blocked editors certainly can be right. Attention might also want to be devoted to the question of whether the new editor is a sock or not - about which I express no opinion. I will note this post in the t:HA discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The new editor shot himself in the foot and is now blocked as a sock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 24 March 2013 (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.

ANI

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 can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [164].

I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [165], but that was reverted [166].

I asked why it was reverted [167], and that was reverted too [168]. And again [169] [170] and again [171] [172].

Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.

So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis ^(talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of 88.104.27.2

I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWG ^talk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with 88.104.27.2. There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to 88.104.27.2. At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If 88.104.27.2 had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. 88.104.27.2 was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.

And people wonder why Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention? Kurtis ^(talk) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (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.

Accountability

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.

---

Thanks for unblocking.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.

The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [173] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [174], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [175].

A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.

B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.

Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [176].

I asked BW to explain the block [177] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive [178]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [179]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.

BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.221 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWG ^talk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (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.

Harassment

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.

---

If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)

I asked for the block reason here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last of those requests was just reverted [180] as "Rmv trolling". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this "editor" has yet to even ADVISE me that they had reported me here to AN. Seems to fit the pattern - the "rules" don't apply to them - only the made-up ones of their apply to others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad, sorry; done [181]. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not very nice to call someone "incompetent, a dick, a TROLL". If anyone can show me where the block has been explained, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd like a straight answer to my straight questions, viz. "Why did you block me? Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings?". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (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

WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged with 29 open requests, some more than 2 days old. Admins needed. Get Set, Ready, Mop. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Unfortunately, the list hasn't been dealt with in order so you'll need to go down the whole list to see which requests have been dealt with and which ones haven't. Any help would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleared now; thx everybody. Lectonar (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Template screwup

Hi, I need some admin assistance, in that some templates I made protected edit request for, see:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sfan00+IMG&namespace=11&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 all have a simmilar error, owing to a misreading of the doucmentation concerning the ifeq parser function.

It would be appreciated if an admin could review the relevant templates and remove the spurious | character that got inserted by mistake. This fix should resolve a long standing issue with certain license templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who answered the {{edit protected}} requests, and I really should have spotted the syntax error, so I'm feeling quite embarrassed now... I've fixed all the affected templates. However, if the request at Template talk:License migration complete is anything to go by, the templates will need to be changed yet again - which is enough to put me off touching them for now. If somebody else wants to fix them in the meantime, be my guest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic

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.

---

Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([182]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I just don't want to cause too much drama here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [183], [184]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
          • FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
                • It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• SupportOppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC). I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• personal preference: Wikipedia:Standard offer — Ched :  ?  18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Acoma Magic's comment

Sockpuppet blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - This is Acoma Magic. Sorry for being late, been busy and I don't check the talk page of AM often. Before you all get menstrual, I assume this was an invite - [185] and since my AM account can't edit its own talk page I may as well comment here. I don't know if the community ban and standard offer are mutually exclusive options. It doesn't matter because they are both shit policies anyway as the community ban does nothing and the standard offer wastes 6 months of good editing time for those that obey it and rewards skilful sock puppets that don't. Who came up with these? Didn't anybody point out that they were stupid at the proposal discussion? Anywho... as I read Wikipedia almost everyday, I can't resist improving an article that I find a flaw in so the standard offer isn't possible. Would a restriction to 1 revert for 6 months be suitable? Bootore (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Absolutely not, especially for someone who seems to refuse to acknowledge virtually any relevent policies you're breaking. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think you may be assuming that, as I frequently reference policies and try to follow them wherever possible. I only have problems with edit warring and socking, which my proposal would solve. Also, regarding your edit at the above section, I'm trying to follow policy and act constructively with this proposal. Rutgut (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC) If the policies are bad, then it would seem that you might want to be a part of the community and lobby to change them, that is, if you actually care about building an encyclopedia. As it stands, you're not in a advantageous position to negotiate a better offer, given your history and the attitude that you're displaying here. If I were in your shoes, and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I would start by admitting that I was wrong, committing to not repeat the same behaviors and I would apologize to the community for wasting their time chasing after my socks. - MrX 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's much better, as a 1R restriction will piss me off a lot. I admit that edit warring is a problem and the 1R restriction will prevent that behaviour. I apologise to most (possibly all) of the people that have spent time that was related to my socks. The reason I say most is that I don't agree with the very selective interpretation of what a revert is that got me blocked and how the three reverter got off fine and therefore I offer no apology to those involved in that who subsequently spent time related to my socks. Rutgut (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Per this suggestion - [186] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Help us to help you: → unblock ticket request system - MrX 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I tried three times but I got this message every go: "A database error occured when attempting to process your request: Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know if that's a good idea, but I think AM is disrupting the discussion again. Not good. Would a block on him be a good idea or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think we usually let blocked users participate in discussions of which they are the subject. AM will either successfully get (temporarily) unblocked through UTRS or will have to wait for a helpful admin to see this. Of course, creating sockpuppets to join a discussion is usually frowned upon, but hell, why not go for broke! - MrX 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I am not sure if that's a good idea, but we'll see what we can do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I understand it was you who opened the recent SPI and my above comment was referring to AM. And to clarify, no personal attack was intended on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New editor at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous

A new editor has taken up the position that Govgovgov (a now-blocked Acoma Magic sock) was putting in the discussion at Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous#Specific sentence. I would appreciate input on the editorial question being raised in that section as blocked editors certainly can be right. Attention might also want to be devoted to the question of whether the new editor is a sock or not - about which I express no opinion. I will note this post in the t:HA discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The new editor shot himself in the foot and is now blocked as a sock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 24 March 2013 (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.

ANI

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 can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [187].

I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [188], but that was reverted [189].

I asked why it was reverted [190], and that was reverted too [191]. And again [192] [193] and again [194] [195].

Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.

So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis ^(talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of 88.104.27.2

I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWG ^talk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with 88.104.27.2. There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to 88.104.27.2. At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If 88.104.27.2 had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. 88.104.27.2 was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.

And people wonder why Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention? Kurtis ^(talk) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (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.

Accountability

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.

---

Thanks for unblocking.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.

The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [196] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [197], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [198].

A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.

B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.

Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [199].

I asked BW to explain the block [200] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive [201]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [202]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.

BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.221 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWG ^talk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (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.

Harassment

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.

---

If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)

I asked for the block reason here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last of those requests was just reverted [203] as "Rmv trolling". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this "editor" has yet to even ADVISE me that they had reported me here to AN. Seems to fit the pattern - the "rules" don't apply to them - only the made-up ones of their apply to others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad, sorry; done [204]. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not very nice to call someone "incompetent, a dick, a TROLL". If anyone can show me where the block has been explained, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd like a straight answer to my straight questions, viz. "Why did you block me? Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings?". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (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

WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged with 29 open requests, some more than 2 days old. Admins needed. Get Set, Ready, Mop. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Unfortunately, the list hasn't been dealt with in order so you'll need to go down the whole list to see which requests have been dealt with and which ones haven't. Any help would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleared now; thx everybody. Lectonar (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Template screwup

Hi, I need some admin assistance, in that some templates I made protected edit request for, see:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sfan00+IMG&namespace=11&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 all have a simmilar error, owing to a misreading of the doucmentation concerning the ifeq parser function.

It would be appreciated if an admin could review the relevant templates and remove the spurious | character that got inserted by mistake. This fix should resolve a long standing issue with certain license templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who answered the {{edit protected}} requests, and I really should have spotted the syntax error, so I'm feeling quite embarrassed now... I've fixed all the affected templates. However, if the request at Template talk:License migration complete is anything to go by, the templates will need to be changed yet again - which is enough to put me off touching them for now. If somebody else wants to fix them in the meantime, be my guest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Will Beback

Just to let people know that there's an informal RfC at User:Jmh649/Will Beback to discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Umm, wasn't this just announced here? I can't find it on this page or in the archives, so I'm questioning the page history, not your helpful notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe Doc James posted it to AN/I, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, Nyttend. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Right you are; sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic

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.

---

Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([205]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I just don't want to cause too much drama here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [206], [207]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
          • FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
                • It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• SupportOppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC). I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• personal preference: Wikipedia:Standard offer — Ched :  ?  18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Acoma Magic's comment

Sockpuppet blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - This is Acoma Magic. Sorry for being late, been busy and I don't check the talk page of AM often. Before you all get menstrual, I assume this was an invite - [208] and since my AM account can't edit its own talk page I may as well comment here. I don't know if the community ban and standard offer are mutually exclusive options. It doesn't matter because they are both shit policies anyway as the community ban does nothing and the standard offer wastes 6 months of good editing time for those that obey it and rewards skilful sock puppets that don't. Who came up with these? Didn't anybody point out that they were stupid at the proposal discussion? Anywho... as I read Wikipedia almost everyday, I can't resist improving an article that I find a flaw in so the standard offer isn't possible. Would a restriction to 1 revert for 6 months be suitable? Bootore (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Absolutely not, especially for someone who seems to refuse to acknowledge virtually any relevent policies you're breaking. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think you may be assuming that, as I frequently reference policies and try to follow them wherever possible. I only have problems with edit warring and socking, which my proposal would solve. Also, regarding your edit at the above section, I'm trying to follow policy and act constructively with this proposal. Rutgut (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC) If the policies are bad, then it would seem that you might want to be a part of the community and lobby to change them, that is, if you actually care about building an encyclopedia. As it stands, you're not in a advantageous position to negotiate a better offer, given your history and the attitude that you're displaying here. If I were in your shoes, and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I would start by admitting that I was wrong, committing to not repeat the same behaviors and I would apologize to the community for wasting their time chasing after my socks. - MrX 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's much better, as a 1R restriction will piss me off a lot. I admit that edit warring is a problem and the 1R restriction will prevent that behaviour. I apologise to most (possibly all) of the people that have spent time that was related to my socks. The reason I say most is that I don't agree with the very selective interpretation of what a revert is that got me blocked and how the three reverter got off fine and therefore I offer no apology to those involved in that who subsequently spent time related to my socks. Rutgut (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Per this suggestion - [209] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Help us to help you: → unblock ticket request system - MrX 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I tried three times but I got this message every go: "A database error occured when attempting to process your request: Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know if that's a good idea, but I think AM is disrupting the discussion again. Not good. Would a block on him be a good idea or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think we usually let blocked users participate in discussions of which they are the subject. AM will either successfully get (temporarily) unblocked through UTRS or will have to wait for a helpful admin to see this. Of course, creating sockpuppets to join a discussion is usually frowned upon, but hell, why not go for broke! - MrX 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I am not sure if that's a good idea, but we'll see what we can do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I understand it was you who opened the recent SPI and my above comment was referring to AM. And to clarify, no personal attack was intended on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New editor at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous

A new editor has taken up the position that Govgovgov (a now-blocked Acoma Magic sock) was putting in the discussion at Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous#Specific sentence. I would appreciate input on the editorial question being raised in that section as blocked editors certainly can be right. Attention might also want to be devoted to the question of whether the new editor is a sock or not - about which I express no opinion. I will note this post in the t:HA discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The new editor shot himself in the foot and is now blocked as a sock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 24 March 2013 (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.

ANI

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 can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [210].

I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [211], but that was reverted [212].

I asked why it was reverted [213], and that was reverted too [214]. And again [215] [216] and again [217] [218].

Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.

So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis ^(talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of 88.104.27.2

I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWG ^talk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with 88.104.27.2. There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to 88.104.27.2. At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If 88.104.27.2 had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. 88.104.27.2 was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.

And people wonder why Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention? Kurtis ^(talk) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (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.

Accountability

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.

---

Thanks for unblocking.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.

The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [219] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [220], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [221].

A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.

B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.

Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [222].

I asked BW to explain the block [223] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive [224]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [225]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.

BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.221 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWG ^talk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (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.

Harassment

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.

---

If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)

I asked for the block reason here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last of those requests was just reverted [226] as "Rmv trolling". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this "editor" has yet to even ADVISE me that they had reported me here to AN. Seems to fit the pattern - the "rules" don't apply to them - only the made-up ones of their apply to others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad, sorry; done [227]. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not very nice to call someone "incompetent, a dick, a TROLL". If anyone can show me where the block has been explained, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd like a straight answer to my straight questions, viz. "Why did you block me? Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings?". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (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

WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged with 29 open requests, some more than 2 days old. Admins needed. Get Set, Ready, Mop. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Unfortunately, the list hasn't been dealt with in order so you'll need to go down the whole list to see which requests have been dealt with and which ones haven't. Any help would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleared now; thx everybody. Lectonar (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Template screwup

Hi, I need some admin assistance, in that some templates I made protected edit request for, see:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sfan00+IMG&namespace=11&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 all have a simmilar error, owing to a misreading of the doucmentation concerning the ifeq parser function.

It would be appreciated if an admin could review the relevant templates and remove the spurious | character that got inserted by mistake. This fix should resolve a long standing issue with certain license templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who answered the {{edit protected}} requests, and I really should have spotted the syntax error, so I'm feeling quite embarrassed now... I've fixed all the affected templates. However, if the request at Template talk:License migration complete is anything to go by, the templates will need to be changed yet again - which is enough to put me off touching them for now. If somebody else wants to fix them in the meantime, be my guest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Will Beback

Just to let people know that there's an informal RfC at User:Jmh649/Will Beback to discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Umm, wasn't this just announced here? I can't find it on this page or in the archives, so I'm questioning the page history, not your helpful notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe Doc James posted it to AN/I, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, Nyttend. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Right you are; sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects

Moved to WP:VP/T, section "Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects ". Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic

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.

---

Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([228]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I just don't want to cause too much drama here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [229], [230]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
        • For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
          • FYI: User:Floquenbeam/Most community ban discussions are dumb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
                • It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• SupportOppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC). I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• personal preference: Wikipedia:Standard offer — Ched :  ?  18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if a user is banned, there are two ways to appeal it: First is the Unblock Mailing List: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Should they decline the banned users requests, they can appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of ArbCom, who can be contacted at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Anyone who reverts banned editors are exempt from the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no unblock mailing list anymore. It was replaced with WP:UTRS.--v/r - TP 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Acoma Magic's comment

Sockpuppet blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - This is Acoma Magic. Sorry for being late, been busy and I don't check the talk page of AM often. Before you all get menstrual, I assume this was an invite - [231] and since my AM account can't edit its own talk page I may as well comment here. I don't know if the community ban and standard offer are mutually exclusive options. It doesn't matter because they are both shit policies anyway as the community ban does nothing and the standard offer wastes 6 months of good editing time for those that obey it and rewards skilful sock puppets that don't. Who came up with these? Didn't anybody point out that they were stupid at the proposal discussion? Anywho... as I read Wikipedia almost everyday, I can't resist improving an article that I find a flaw in so the standard offer isn't possible. Would a restriction to 1 revert for 6 months be suitable? Bootore (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Absolutely not, especially for someone who seems to refuse to acknowledge virtually any relevent policies you're breaking. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think you may be assuming that, as I frequently reference policies and try to follow them wherever possible. I only have problems with edit warring and socking, which my proposal would solve. Also, regarding your edit at the above section, I'm trying to follow policy and act constructively with this proposal. Rutgut (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC) If the policies are bad, then it would seem that you might want to be a part of the community and lobby to change them, that is, if you actually care about building an encyclopedia. As it stands, you're not in a advantageous position to negotiate a better offer, given your history and the attitude that you're displaying here. If I were in your shoes, and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I would start by admitting that I was wrong, committing to not repeat the same behaviors and I would apologize to the community for wasting their time chasing after my socks. - MrX 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's much better, as a 1R restriction will piss me off a lot. I admit that edit warring is a problem and the 1R restriction will prevent that behaviour. I apologise to most (possibly all) of the people that have spent time that was related to my socks. The reason I say most is that I don't agree with the very selective interpretation of what a revert is that got me blocked and how the three reverter got off fine and therefore I offer no apology to those involved in that who subsequently spent time related to my socks. Rutgut (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Per this suggestion - [232] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Help us to help you: → unblock ticket request system - MrX 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I tried three times but I got this message every go: "A database error occured when attempting to process your request: Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know if that's a good idea, but I think AM is disrupting the discussion again. Not good. Would a block on him be a good idea or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I think we usually let blocked users participate in discussions of which they are the subject. AM will either successfully get (temporarily) unblocked through UTRS or will have to wait for a helpful admin to see this. Of course, creating sockpuppets to join a discussion is usually frowned upon, but hell, why not go for broke! - MrX 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, I am not sure if that's a good idea, but we'll see what we can do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I understand it was you who opened the recent SPI and my above comment was referring to AM. And to clarify, no personal attack was intended on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New editor at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous

A new editor has taken up the position that Govgovgov (a now-blocked Acoma Magic sock) was putting in the discussion at Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous#Specific sentence. I would appreciate input on the editorial question being raised in that section as blocked editors certainly can be right. Attention might also want to be devoted to the question of whether the new editor is a sock or not - about which I express no opinion. I will note this post in the t:HA discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The new editor shot himself in the foot and is now blocked as a sock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 24 March 2013 (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.

ANI

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 can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [233].

I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [234], but that was reverted [235].

I asked why it was reverted [236], and that was reverted too [237]. And again [238] [239] and again [240] [241].

Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.

So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis ^(talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of 88.104.27.2

I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWG ^talk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with 88.104.27.2. There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to 88.104.27.2. At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If 88.104.27.2 had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. 88.104.27.2 was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.

And people wonder why Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention? Kurtis ^(talk) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (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.

Accountability

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.

---

Thanks for unblocking.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.

The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [242] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [243], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [244].

A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.

B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.

Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [245].

I asked BW to explain the block [246] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive [247]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [248]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.

BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.221 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWG ^talk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (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.

Harassment

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.

---

If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)

I asked for the block reason here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The last of those requests was just reverted [249] as "Rmv trolling". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, this "editor" has yet to even ADVISE me that they had reported me here to AN. Seems to fit the pattern - the "rules" don't apply to them - only the made-up ones of their apply to others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad, sorry; done [250]. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not very nice to call someone "incompetent, a dick, a TROLL". If anyone can show me where the block has been explained, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd like a straight answer to my straight questions, viz. "Why did you block me? Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings?". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (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.

Article ban request

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 would kindly ask administrators to look at the conversation on the talk page of Jan z Jani and article ban ColonelHenry (talk) from further editing on that page. Reason: We faced a dispute regarding correct spelling of the name but the discussion move on forward in good way, the subject is quite difficult and we wish to reach consensus i matter. However, in last post of ColonelHenry (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) the input is insulting me personally. ColonelHenry use words like polish Czy rozumiesz teraz, półgłówek? whitch can be translated to Do You now understand halfbrain or similar. Furtheremore, no statements of ColonelHenry have any given source or can verify or backup his statements. I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion. camdan (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the pot calls the kettle black. This is ridiculous. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at the tenor of his replies at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Jan z Jani, and Talk:Jan z Jani if you want to see the true character of this "complainer." --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I welcome administrators or anyone to look at what have been posted. As You can see, I do not agree in most of what ColonelHenry is posting and I question academic value of his comments that I believe are of more personal character. The discussion can sometimes be hard and I also understand this but calling people by names is rude and not acceptable. I do not think that this board is for ColonelHenry or me to discuss this matter further since I asked administrators to overlook this question to come up with conclusions. Please respect that and let other persons come to their own conlusions. Thank you.camdan (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no view on whether ColonelHenry should be banned from editing the Jan z Jani article. I do note that shortly after receiving two warnings and the threat of a block for personal attacks on other editors [251] [252], ColonelHenry referred to me here as "morally despicable", "blatant dishonesty" and continued by harassing me on my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, you trolled a GA review to rehash old grudges on material that had no place per policy in the article, and then lied about something that could be easily refuted. And my only comment, that you call "harrassment" was to point out that the grudge rhetoric wasn't constructive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Lied" and "trolled" can be added to the list of insults. Spoken on an administrator's notice board, no less. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

The user doth protest too much, methinks. What is your interest here? What was your interest at the Thomas Traherne GA? (at which you offered nothing except rehashing old grudges...which I had forgotten and were not in the slightest bit relevant to the GA issues until you brought them back up. While "trolling" might be a loaded word, from an objective viewpoint your lingering around things regarding me and passive attempts to pick a fight and provoke when you do emerge from the shadow appears very furtively insidious. Did I really get under your skin so badly so long ago because I acted to improve an article in accordance with policy by relocating an inconsequential quotefarm to wikiquote and removed useless popular culture trivia section? Have you seriously been harbouring a grudge for 4 months and aching for any chance to feign victimhood? This is beyond ridiculous. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know enough about the backstory here to offer an opinion about an article ban, but I think it was inappropriate for ColonelHenry to refer to camdan (or any other editor) as a "half-wit" (Google translation). An apology is in order. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, even if it was improper, neither party is blameless--although I doubt the other user, camdan, is willing to admit that or reciprocate...which makes his complaint rather disingenuous.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like we have a blame game going on. I think it is disconcerting that after calling someone a half wit and being told that does deserve an apology that you can't just offer it. If you can't just say "I'm sorry" than how can your words here even be trusted.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I'm not inclined to apologise to someone who spent the previous three-days being disrespectful and condescending. What's worse is that apparently none of the comments take that user to task for their previous incivility, but just because I call him a "half-wit" for being obtuse, I'm automatically demonised. The best that's going to happen is I'll ignore him/her and the ridiculous hypocrisy of that user's complaining here when their previous statements were more abusive. I could care less, I commented on a requested move that ended up getting me notified when the matter was brought to WP:DRN, and there User:camdan has rather rudely said:

• Your emotianal input have no sources and no value at all,
• Your lack of knowledge in this subject is obviouse
• Furtheremore, this subject is not about what You think since You do not have any academic degree in subject.
• anyone that write on the subject should have academic education and those that do not have such education shuld actually reflect on what they are writing since it is just pure reflection of subjective mind and not scientific or academic.
• That would be end of discussion! Please comment if You can provide any academic source on subject - Your translation of wiki rules are just trying to defend knowledge in subject that You do not have.
• You certainly do not have any academic education at all in such subject, Your input is pure emotional (Note: I have two doctoral degrees, so his assumption was as baseless as it was wrong.).
• You throw latin just to make people think that You have knowledge in subject that You do not have. You reference to french spelling is just embarrassing

Despite what User:camdan thinks, my statements on the matter at WP:RM, at WP:DRN, Talk:Jan z Jani were correct and backed by scholarship (For more information, see Wright, Roger. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. (London, New York: Routledge, 1991); and Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. (Liverpool: F. Cairns, 1982).

So, unless User:camdan is taken to task, any criticism of me lacks credibility. I really don't care if someone abuses me, I've never really had a thin-skin and I take a punch better than most. Until I said "half-wit" I was incredibly civil and willing to discuss the scholarship, despite being told by User:camdan I was essentially an uneducated idiot. And in the interest of the "pot calls the kettle black" school of thought:

• I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion

Tu quoque. Go figure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You do seem to be a rather intelligent person to me. I am sure you can figure out why the above is not on the same level as name calling. Look, I doubt anyone is going to be topic banned here, but furthering the conflict in the manner you did was not appropriate. If someone makes accusations that just not accurate about your education that is pretty bad, but it is because we don't know each other here and sure, the other editor should not be discussing you in this manner. It was an act of escalation on their part. But you jumped right in and began making it worse by not just cooling down and making your case. I think this is a matter for both parties to simply back off from each other for the time being. Pretty simple...if you both can do it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I must be the uneducated idiot that User:camdan thinks I am because I seem to miss the distinction between someone being called a half-wit or being repeatedly belittled as "you must not be educated" (a less forward way of saying "you're a half-wit") and "you're not worthy of participating in this discussion" (i.e. again, effectively saying "you're a half-wit, go away"). Your assessment advocating a distinction strikes me as "splitting hairs". Lastly, I made my case...but apparently it wasn't deemed worthy or valueable for User:camdan to discuss on its merits because all I was told in response was several iterations of "you're an idiot, go away" in slightly more polite terms. But then again, *that* (for some Kafkaesque reason) isn't "name-calling."--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz. If you ask ColonelHenry to apologize to camdan for calling him a "half-wit", which I think you are justified in doing, would you like to ask him to apologize to me for accusing me of being "morally despicable", "blatant dishonesty", "lied" and "trolled" (see above in this thread where the latter two insults are issued). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

• First of all, this seems like a better fit for WP:ANI. Second, though I'm only tangentially related to the issue at hand (I performed a NAC on an RM at Jan z Jani), a quick look over the dispute suggests an interaction ban may be more constructive. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think any talk of any sort of ban is ridiculous at this point...User:camdan has acknowledged that I was correct and dropped his objection at my talk page, and at Talk:Jan z Jani. This, for all intents and purposes, is a moot issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There is difference between influence on language and what is written in medieval sources - there are totally different things - if I talk about vitamines in tomatoes, why taling about onion and olive oil? So...I never questioned CH's education or knowledge about language and influence or his other knowledge but here he simply did not spend years in archives reading original sources - which is not the same as reading publications (contain errors). Therefore, writing about 19th century influence have nothing to do with this case and was destructive. In this link You find the work of Parpocki, although it have none academic value, it is still written in 16th century. Look at page 66 (64 in book version - what does it tell? And it does not matter whatever influence there is on language, it is simply matter of how names where spelled in Poland in medieval times - what is in original sources - and from that question if it would be better to spell names in medieval latin or polish on en:wiki - influence or not. The outcome was no, so case is closed and I have no problems with that. Still, I wish to discuss further matter of spelling in other way and maybe reach consensus and therefore, I wrote on this board, becaue if we are going to continue in same way, we just waste time - and we will face 100 more discussion like that in the future. So yes, I don't have any objections about the note in art Jan z Jani that CH wrote regarding influence on language and why should I, I never questioned that part, I questioned something else. camdan (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please show a DIFF that requires admin action? Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2013 (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

WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged with 29 open requests, some more than 2 days old. Admins needed. Get Set, Ready, Mop. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. There's a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Unfortunately, the list hasn't been dealt with in order so you'll need to go down the whole list to see which requests have been dealt with and which ones haven't. Any help would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleared now; thx everybody. Lectonar (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Template screwup

Hi, I need some admin assistance, in that some templates I made protected edit request for, see:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sfan00+IMG&namespace=11&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 all have a simmilar error, owing to a misreading of the doucmentation concerning the ifeq parser function.

It would be appreciated if an admin could review the relevant templates and remove the spurious | character that got inserted by mistake. This fix should resolve a long standing issue with certain license templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who answered the {{edit protected}} requests, and I really should have spotted the syntax error, so I'm feeling quite embarrassed now... I've fixed all the affected templates. However, if the request at Template talk:License migration complete is anything to go by, the templates will need to be changed yet again - which is enough to put me off touching them for now. If somebody else wants to fix them in the meantime, be my guest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Will Beback

Just to let people know that there's an informal RfC at User:Jmh649/Will Beback to discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Umm, wasn't this just announced here? I can't find it on this page or in the archives, so I'm questioning the page history, not your helpful notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe Doc James posted it to AN/I, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, Nyttend. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Right you are; sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects

Moved to WP:VP/T, section "Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects ". Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of new user name

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 had no intention of creating a new user name nor editing from anything other than as an IP however since my work and home both user proxy servers and the IP's are dynamic and change frequently, the result appears as though I am socking. Since I am an outspoken critic of several areas in the community this gave my accusers an avenue for attack. So now I have created this username, which I intend to use solely for the purposes of editing here. This will eliminate the variable IP mess and will eliminate the arguments from some of my accusers who like to delete my comments because they don't agree. I notified a couple members of the Arbcom (I would have notified more but the Email spammer triggered) that I would notify the community of this new account so I could not be accused of socking and that I would create an account that would be easily identified as me to prevent any "confusion". I got no response after a couple days so I created it. Silence is consent. This is about as clear as it can get. I am trying to be honest and forthcoming here so if there are any questions let me know. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, your account is both globally locked and locally indeffed. You're actively evading your (b)lock by editing here, no matter whether you do it under an IP or an account. The option of a clean start is not available to you. You know the rules well enough to know that none of what you're doing here is ok. If you want the right to edit Wikipedia, you will need to resolve the issues that have your account (b)locked; until then you're continuing to flagrantly violate policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am globally blocked because that is what I wanted and persisted to get that. I was refused multiple times and had to post my password to get the global block. As for here, I am blocked here due to socking or the perception of socking. Mostly because of the variable IP's. I really wouldn't care about having the account and would be fine editing from an IP however since that is perceived as Socking because my IP's constantly change, this is necessary to "resolve" that as you put it. I also agree that a clean start isn't possible, for me or anyone else. In order for a clean start one needs to identify I was X now I am Y or else they will be charged with socking. I created another username in an attempt to clean start which was ThePhoenixReborn. That was when I knew for certain that a clean start wouldn't work for me and was affirmed that it was a garbage policy that probably should be deleted. I have edited all over, to a wide array of topics. My knowledge of the system and the rules is immediately recognized after a few edits. Its not like I edited some obscure topic like extinct flowers, I was all over, in every namespace across tens of thousands of pages, in multiple wiki's. Any other concerns you want me to address? KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who indeffed Kumioko, I just want to go on the record saying that I'm fine with him returning with a new account if he's willing to edit solely with that account and not edit logged out. As I said after blocking, if he was willing to stop editing as an IP I would lift the block I'd placed, and as far as I'm concerned that is still the case. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2013 (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.