Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240

Upadting Non-free license templates

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_16#Template:Has-NFUR

I've updated some templates, but the major ones are protected, needing administrator intervention,

An example of the proposed change is posted here : Template_talk:Non-free_biog-pic amongst others.

The change is straightforward to do, and shouldn't take that long to do :)

Thanks in advance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In relation to this on a different template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANon-free_video_cover&diff=514856299&oldid=500974795

Polandball bounces back - what to do?

Polandball was an article about a nationalist cartoon meme created by a currently banned user with a history of problematic editing in nationalist areas. It was deleted in April following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball. It reappeared on my watchlist today. User:Babelia created a new Polnadball article, which was cut and pasted from Know Your Meme. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, but the tag was removed within 5 minutes by User:Rave with the edit summary of "rewritten". Except it wasn't rewritten at all, it was replaced by the text that User:Russavia has copied onto nearly every language Wikipedia (eg here) in an effort to spread this meme. I would prefer not to start another AfD which will give people a platform to spout their nationalist views - can someone deal with this in a more expedient manner? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Solved easily enough with a G4 tag, for a recreation of a deleted article. If this user chooses to edit-war over that, then I hope a block comes swiftly. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't just removed tag. The article was really rewritten with new text, so G2-tag was unnecesarry. --Rave (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The G4 deletion was correct, but to clarify for Rave: You replaced one copyright violation with another; you can't take someone else's text and add it as your own without attribution. That was a copyright violation too. Since I can't imagine this article being recreated in a way that wouldn't still violate Sandstein's deletion rationale, I'm going to salt it. Any admin is welcome to unsalt if they think this is out of line, without my prior OK or comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnmylove

Please keep an eye on this user's contributions: User:Johnmylove He is recently trying to delete 10.800+ bytes of sourced information from the Religion in Russia article. He seems to have a history of edit-wars and conflicts with other users.--79.31.85.135 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious history of edit wars (certainly no blocks). It appears that Johnmylove restored the article back to September 23, after a great many edits by different IP addresses (a couple of exceptions, edits by registered accounts), all of which geolocate to Bergamo, Italy, including the OP. Beyond that, it's all content-related, and I have no idea as to whether Johnmylove's restore is justifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I should add, in all fairness to the OP, that a review of Johnmylove's talk page does show a problematic history, including warnings of edit-warring, breaches of BLP, uploading non-free images, and creating articles that were speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it too and saw what you did Bbb23 with one exception. It looks like Johmylove took out the Bergamo IP(s) edits. To my eyes it looks like the IPs added a batch of info only some of which is sourced. Both the IP and J labelled each others edits as vandalism which does not seem to be the case. Perhaps the aid of someone who is acquainted with the subject could take a look at all of the additions and decide whether they help the article or not. Hopefully this will be of some help to those who look at this, but it may not be an admin matter at this point. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

These apparent content disputes where editors toss around the word vandalism are always more difficult to assess when one (like me) doesn't know enough about the subject matter to know whether it's purely a content dispute or the editing is actually disruptive. It doesn't look to me like administrative intervention is required at this point but may be needed if the battle continues. J hasn't edited the article since the IP restored all the material, nor has he edited anything else, so he may be off-wiki, which might explain why he hasn't commented here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have thoroughly noticed that article is being corrupted by a particular person using different Ip addresses who neither understands the Russian language and neither he is related to the russian ethnicity, since he is interested in Russia History, the person has created different Ids on Wikipedia including the one with the name User:Anandks007, and have edited the article without any reliable source. The source seems to be photo edited out of something and is being credited as proof to claim the information. I need to inform that there is pure corruption and destruction of the article by User:79.31.85.135 and his other duplicate addresses User:95.237.79.222, User:82.58.166.196, User:82.58.166.196 etc. Hence I kindly request you to look into the matter and take necessary action against this unregistered IP addresses that have been continously changing the accuracy of this article for their own personal interests and according to their own objectives. I have noticed similar actions being displayed by this notorius editor on other Russian related pages. --Johnmylove (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was normal till September 23, and since then different IP addresses has been editing the article on the same topic and I found it suspicious and have restored it back to its original script as it was. --Johnmylove (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claims are delirious. I am not User:Anandks007 or the others who have modified the page while I was updating it to the 2012 figures, and the administrators can verify. I am quite well skilled in Russian culture and religion. The sources used are a 2012 sociological survey published by Russian press, and the only reliable one to date (previous estimates were based on religious websites or membership estimates of the churches). You seem to be a Christian fundamentalist trying to enforce your personal agenda in Wikipedia, as you did in the Anders Behring Breivik controversy and other times. --95.252.40.244 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: my IP address is dynamic, so it doesn't depend on me if it changes. --95.252.40.244 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• John, if you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, you should file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I seem User:95.252.40.244 is hindu fundamentalist who is necessary involving his hindu agenda, so stop giving your foolish edits, I am not going to consider your edit. Whatsoever there is no information regarding whether the cropped photo is published by russian press and hence unless the official date exists, I shall not allow this article to be disrupted by certain elements such as this. The page looks vulgar filled with unnecessary information being forced to viewed by the general public and the information looks to be hoax. I doubt that even after blocking the Ip addreses, the person's Ip addresses seems to be dynamic, as he notoriously claims would not stop him from making more deliberate attempt to continue his agenda. --Johnmylove (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I am not user Anandks and it will be verified, and I am not a "Hindu fundamentalist" since I'm not Indian. The page is not "vulgar" or filled with unnecessary informations. The survey is discussed in these press articles used in the text: Olga Filina (Ogonek Magazine). Mapping Russia's Religious Landscape. Russia and India Report. Retrieved 24-09-2012. and Верю — не верю. "Ogonek", № 34 (5243), 27/08/2012. Retrieved 24-09-2012. Please stop reverting valid contributions made by other users just because you don't like them. --188.10.92.249 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, it seems that you have used a "sockpuppet" IP 119.82.120.221 to bypass the 3RR rule.--188.10.92.249 (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• The edit-warring content dispute continues, so I have locked the article for 3 days. John filed an SPI report but has failed to produce any evidence of sockpuppetry. I also note that John has not discussed the dispute on the article's talk page. I repeat here what I just said on the article talk page: you must discuss the content dispute and seek dispute resolution if you cannot resolve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD backlog

There is quite a backlog at WP:AFD at the moment, which needs a few admins to go through and close them. I've gone through most of them that need to be closed today, and might get a few more done, but there's still quite a lot there to be done. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just knocked down a good chunk of them, but I gotta go and there are still about twenty five items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've got a bit more spare time now; I'll see if I can get through a few more. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Now down to one item, which I can't close because I am the nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass nominations of Church articles for deletion

Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk · contribs) has been massively nominating church articles for deletion via PROD. They are all contentious and I am planning on undoing them. I am starting this discussion to see if standard rollback would be appropriate here based on the statement that rollback is appropriate "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". In a similar manner, to save time and energy, could an administrator use mass rollback. Can an administrator also check his deleted contribs and see if he PRODed any before today that were deleted because I plan to request undeletion of those articles. Forgive me if this shouldn't be at WP:AN, I felt it was more appropriate than ANI because I am requesting administrator action; however, am requesting no action to be taken against the user in question. Ryan Vesey 21:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of 81 articles he nominated for deletion so far. Ryan Vesey 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Massive deletion campaigns are never a good sign. Seriously, to anyone that has been around Wikipedia longer than a year or two: has similar behavior ever gone well? The answer is no, it never has. It always makes the nominator look bad, even if they don't have ill intentions, it smells funny to anyone who has seen this go on so many times before. This is always a bad idea. For the record, as you are rolling him back, nothing has been deleted. I checked. You can safely roll back all of his PRODs. And I would still advise him of this discussion, he needs to be involved, if for no other reason than to hear why this is a bad idea. --Jayron32 22:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like Floquenbeam and I have reverted most of them, though at least one PROD was contested already by a third party. - jc37 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) All PROD's removed by jc37 and me (and maybe others, his is the only other name I saw right away. I'll let you do the explaining on his talkpage part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to the lot of you, I'll leave a note. I only caught it because an NRHP article was nominated. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)As is often the problem with mass nominations, there are several distinct classifications you could put the nominated articles into. First there are the articles that are both sourced and talk about the history of a pretty old church, it seems unlikely that they will ever get a delete consensus. Then there are pure stubs, that provide no substantive information, other then locations and an infobox that describes the church its a part of, those articles might conceivably be deleted on a lack of notability grounds, though I expect a decent argument could be made that churches are almost certainly notable by nature. Finally you have really problematic articles that are borderline G11, and we may actually want to delete. But as its a mass nomination, non of the nuance is explained and its unlikely anything will get deleted as a result. Monty₈₄₅ 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well see, that's the problem. Perhaps some of these really needed to be deleted. But they won't be, because the mass nomination shows that no care was taken, since some obviously good articles were prodded along with the crap. So now we have to undo them all, because we can't trust anything done by this user. It's why this is always a bad idea. Work in small batches, check your work, and be darned sure it is all on the up-and-up. Failure to take proper precaution leads to exactly as you note: we don't end up deleting anything (even if a few deserve it) because of the spurious nature in which they were all nominated. --Jayron32 22:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• In case anybody wants to add the church articles to their watchlist, I have a list of them that you can paste into your raw watchlist. Ryan Vesey 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• This is a fairly new user, this year, 122 edits (most of them are those bad PRODs), and he has never used the talk page for an article, wikipedia space or any user talk page. That alone is often problematic, but it forces us to assume a little good faith as he probably didn't understand how disruptive that is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• They are all churches not of any note. None are historically significant architecturally and they are just places that are a dime a dozen. If it wasn't landmarked it didn't go on the list. I saw one then noticed there are a rash of these things. Churches aren't more notable than a dry cleaner or candy store unless the building is landmarked. Churches are businesses and many seem to think they can get away with advertising their business because they are a church. Some of these were pure ads. Some of these didn't establish any noteworthyness. Just because they are a church doesn't mean they are noteworthy. --Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the churches you tagged may not be notable. For example, I just nominated Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church for deletion; however, many of them were. Some of them were even listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Ryan Vesey 02:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• [edit conflict with Ryan] I have to disagree with the mass reversions. I agree that this mass tagging was a problem — but why a mass revert? Many of these articles are clearly without any evidence of notability; for example, see Brethren Reformed Church and Ardmore Presbyterian Church, and see what I did at Church of the Annunciation, Cincinnati. This isn't a situation with many hundreds of bad edits, where you have to do a mass rollback due to the sheer number of problems; you can easily go through just 81 edits one-by-one. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at Brethren Reformed Church. The church was founded in May 2007, the article appeared in June 2007. Most of the article is doctrinal stuff about the denomination and very little is specific to that particular church. Just like the dry cleaners (to continue with that analogy) across the street who could gas on and on about how clean they will get your trousers. Neither of teses (opinion) belongs in wikipedia, at least the dry cleaners didn't try. I am against mass pretty much anything but one-by-one a lot of these should go. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Whoops. Is this spot just for Admins?

No: everyone should feel free to comment in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The safest thing to do when a suspect mass deletion has been attempted is to return to the status quo ante and start from scratch. That ay each article can be dealt with individually and not as part of a pack. It's quite easy to do as Lt. Ramathorn apparently did, and page through a bunch of articles saying "Not a landmark, therefore delete", "Not a landmark, therefore delete"..., but there are other criteria to be considered other than landmark status and architectural significance, such as historical importance and a church's place in ther community. Besides, not all important churches have been landmarked, nor have all architecturallyt significant churches. My understanding is that there's no particular hurry to "finish" the encyclopedia, so there's nothing lost in taking the time to deal with each article on its own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Place in the community" is a veeery, very relative thing. I'm sure that for the members of any congregation, no matter the size, the church holds a place of great significance in the community. Whether or not it is notable, however, is a different thing.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why we don't use our opinions, and instead rely on the reliable sources. If the church is listed as a historical building, or has received significant coverage in paper, or has some other documented reason to set it apart from the average church, then we assume it is notable enough for inclusion. If we aren't sure, we err on the conservative side since it already exists and work a little harder to find sources, or just tag it with a notability tag and allow a little time to pass, and for others to help out. We don't have to clear them all out in a day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point put that mass-reverting the PRODs shows the same lack of care as mass-adding them in the first place. Some of them may be perfect candidates for PROD as obviously non-notable run-of-the-mill churches, but now they will have to go through AFD to be deleted. Sort of a "two wrongs don't make a right" scenario if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

They'll only get deleted if no one about today gives a damn about them, but one could summon up notability around here for a duckpond and a kiddies slide. John lilburne (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I disagree. The reverting wasn't another "wrong". The amount of time it would take to figure out which weren't PROD candidates would be a waste of resources. In addition, I feel that a majority of those that could be deleted should go through AFD anyways. Ryan Vesey 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanket reverting is only permissible in cases of ban or block evasion. another user's carelessness is not a license to be just as careless yourself. You say you believe a majority of them should go through AFD, but since it is clear nobody really evaluated the nominations that position holds no water, and now they have to go through AFD since PRODS can't be re-added even if they are removed for no reason at all. So instead of "wasting your time" being thoughtful in your reversions, you waste everybody else's with a pile of AFDs, some of which are not necessary because of the obvious non-notability of the churches. Your own reply has convinced me further that my assessment was accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true at all. As I commented earlier, revert can be used for reverting widespread edits by a misguided editor. That's what this was. In addition, I am asserting that all of the deletion nominations were controversial and therefore should go through AFD. Ryan Vesey 20:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Jc37, but my mass reversion was based on the inappropriate use of PROD; anyone should feel free to rePROD any of the articles I dePRODed if they've actually looked at the article and feel a PROD is appropriate, and not worry too much about the "can't rePROD an article" rule. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you know.... there is spam in DYK on the main page?

I would have boldly removed the Gibralter-related spam link in today's DYK on the main page, but it is fully protected. Would some administrator take that down, please, so this ongoing scandal doesn't spread further? Carrite (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no spam there; it's only a neutral article about synagogues. I don't see anything in the citations that is being used improperly, and the "Map of Gibraltar with locations of the four synagogues indicated" is definitely not spam. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled too. What spam link? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Related to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gibraltarpedia and the concept of Gibraltarpedia. GiantSnowman 16:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the article on DYK have to do with Gibraltarpedia? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read Gibraltarpedia#Controversy. GiantSnowman 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh lovely. Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's the deal? It's a legitimate article, it was nominated for DYK in the usual way, it was reviewed and promoted by editors in good standing and beyond any suspicion of a COI with respect to Gibraltar topics, so it now got onto DYK according to our normal procedures. If Gibraltar editors are spouting out a lot of new articles, they'll have a lot of DYK entries in the next months. They'll soon run out of new topics; it's such a small place. So, what's the issue? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with FP. Jheald (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm not really seeing the COI issue either. It may well have other problems - don't have the time to look at the sourcing right now - but DYK articles are not exactly selected based on their quality. T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Furthermore, I can't believe that this was approved for the Main Page. What makes refs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16 reliable sources? Furthermore, the whole article doesn't sound neutral, but that is only to be expected when sourcing to advocacy groups. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

← It's probably a good time to have a serious, centralized discussion about our standards on paid editing and conflicts of interest. Actually, the time for that was last December, but back then everyone was mostly focused on using the issue to get WillBeback perma-banned. I'm not saying that every single dispute on Wikipedia boils down to petty personality politics... but it's interesting to see some of the people who attacked Will suddenly manning the barricades against paid editing and COIs. It reminds me that one can never be too cynical about this place. Anyhow, whenever the serious discussion starts, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that this instance does not concern paid editing. Nobody is being paid a penny to edit any articles in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

These are volunteers, writing articles for free, some of whom are being taught how to edit by a paid consultant. There's no need to undermine their efforts. However, it is pertinent to note that they are being incentivised to do so, but this is a very, very different issue. People have run competitions many times before, though this is a very scaled up version of older models. DYK people have already decided this is ok. If the community doesn't feel so, there are better places than ANI to discuss this issue. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Fut.Perf. and Prioryman are speaking sense. The article is new, well-written and was nominated following the usual procedures. Are we seriously going to penalise those who are dedicating so many hours of their lives to create articles about a certain topic/place? Surely these kinds of contributions are only in Wikipedia's best interests... So what if people are being encouraged to nominate articles for DYK? They're only being encouraged to create articles of a certain quality (i.e. will meet the DYK criteria) rather than having hundreds of poorly ref'd stubs. As for "paid editing" there has been no evidence of this. People need to chill out and concentrate on the facts(!) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I am a strictly volunteer contributor to Wikipedia, who just started writing and editing for Wikipedia and DYK this year. I am a physician and mom who does this in my spare time. What is a paid editor? And what is wrong with my article on synagogues in Gibraltar? I am a Catholic who lives in Chicago who thought it would be fun to learn a little something about Judaism in my research for this article. What is going on? I just received a notice a short while ago that something was up. Years ago, the Catholic Church did not treat Jews very well. We're long past that. Why does this seem to be a problem on Wikipedia? How can my article possibly be considered spam? Anne (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I will shout this to the rooftops if necessary: no one editing is being paid - The question is about where we AGF. Do we AGF of the editor, though they may have ulterior motives? (Without investigation the default answer is yes) Do we AGF of the person who assigned the points for the articles? (7 for DYK and then 8 for GA is a little skewif IMO) Without investigation the answer is yes. Do we AGF of the people (in this case the Gibraltan government) who put up the substantial reward for making so many articles? Well, that question is quite closely linked to the second but the default answer is still yes. It might be a good idea to discuss this further in a more appropriate environment. There's a few inconsistencies that make assuming good faith harder than it ought to be.

It's also about whether people particularly care about motives if the content is good. Community consensus seems to be the community doesn't. Can't deny we're getting a lot of new content out of it. Seriously though, not on ANI.

To ACP2011 - I think the articles you've been writing are of a wonderful quality and thank you for adding that information to Wikipedia. This issue is a lot bigger than you, though you are a part of it. GibraltarPedia is encouraging people like yourself (are you aware?) to write DYKs and other articles in order to win points to get a free trip to Gibraltar. This is causing quite a stir but it would be wonderful to hear your opinion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about a free trip to Gibraltar. I did get a notice about a T-shirt a couple of months ago for MonmouthpediA, but I haven't sent my address yet. I've always enjoyed competition; but since I was a kid, it's been more about competition with myself than anything else. I just assumed the "reward" was a "barnstar" or T-shirt. A month or two after I started contributing to Wikipedia earlier this year, it was recommended by some of the other editors that I start submitting articles to DYK and/or GA. I've only done DYK so far. I like it because it forces me to be fastidious about sourcing and it has also taught me to be more aware of close paraphrasing. I just read some of the comments above and clicked on the links. I had no idea that anything was going on with Victuallers (Roger). I have found him to be tremendously supportive and helpful as I've written articles for Wikipedia this year. Anne (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That really helps clear some things up. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the way the GibraltarpediA competition works is that you get 4 or 5 points for a new short article, and if your article appears on the DYK main page, you get an additional 2 or 3 points, for a total of 7 points. Anne (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What Gibraltarpedia really is and why DYK is important

Let me see if I can break this down so that people understand the problem here. What is the government of Gibraltar paying for? Advertising. Little plaques with QR codes are a very minor part of the equation. The real value (i.e. monetary value) in this project is the free publicity generated by the project. All of those feel-good "World's first Wikipedia city" stories. This is why Roger Bamkin states that "QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment". The payback he refers to was the value of the free, international media coverage. As a result of all of that press coverage, Monmouth fully expects to get actual return on its investment through increased tourism. This is the model that is being followed with Gibraltarpedia. DYKs on the front page of one of the world's most-visited sites are worth money because they get people thinking about Gibraltar. And people who think about Gibraltar might visit those attractions they are reading about. And people who visit spend money. This is the substance of Gibraltarpedia, not QR codes and plaques. The people who are volunteering their time to do the grunt work are doing so with the best of intentions, but in some ways they are also unwitting dupes. Is it necessary that all of Wikipedia be co-opted to advance the tourism goals of Gibraltar as well? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion if Wikipedia decides to do further competitions. Consider competition about a theme that doesn't benefit a particular person, country, or other entity. Perhaps biographies, monuments, etc. Also, the reward should be nominal. There have to be other people like me who just enjoy the fun of competition. Anne (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have competitions. See Wikipedia:WikiCup. This one was not instigated within Wikipedia, but outside of it. I agree there are a number of issues worth discussing, but AN is not the right venue for in-depth discussion. (Arguably, it is useful to let admins know this is going on, but that purpose is completed.) There are threads on Jimbo's page, which is a natural place for such a discussion to start, and then maybe some RfC's are needed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is to be a discussion of the DYK issue here, people should at least understand that this is not simple "paid editing". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone does start an organized discussion, this would be a good place to announce the location, and it would be helpful to include relevant facts there, but this isn't the right place to hash it out. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not hashing, I'm explaining. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly:

• We want articles on notable stuff in and around Gibraltar.
• They want articles on notable stuff in and around Gibraltar.

Where's the conflict of interest here? We all want the same things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is it that Victuallers Ltd. wants? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A good question. The easiest way to find out would be to see Victualles Ltd. contracts and financial arrangements with the government of Gibraltar (or any other entity that's contracted with a government to edit Wikipedia). Absent that we're left with lots of uncomfortable speculation.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The conflict is that this is reported as a project for "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon" [1][2], and Wikipedia wants to be seen as a neutral educational site; or as Slate put it, Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes. JN466 03:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• What if I offer to donate one million dollars for polio eradication if somebody writes a good article about my company. Is that a good or bad thing? I think that any arrangements for rewards or compensation should be disclosed transparently for the community of editors to discuss and approve or object. The problem with the Gibraltar DYKs is that money changed hands without disclosure, and our DYKs became unbalanced, to say the least. Jehochman ^Talk 03:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, editing for rewards, such as free travel to Gibraltar, as offered here, does constitute paid editing. That, however, isn't the problem here. The problem here is that members or former members of WMUK were using their association with WMUK for a profit-making enteprise, with WMUK's approval. WMUK is a charity and can't be involved in such activities. Also, the DYK regulars have decided that they do not agree with the use of DYK to support a commercial venture in this way. It is their right to make that decision. The editors not associated with WMUK who are editing Gibraltar-related articles in the hope of winning a prize are not, in my opinion, doing anything wrong, even if the prize was cash. They should be aware, however, that their efforts are potentially being used and manipulated to make money for other people. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The main discussion is on Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know under Potential abuse of DYK, and other threads. The issue is that a trustee of the UK chapter is a paid consultant setting up these projects on behalf of tourist agencies. He's incentivised the volunteers to get the maximum coverage - ie the front page and DYK. There's another issue in that Victuallers has financial relationships with several leading figures in the UK chapter, some of which have been defending him wherever this debate appears. Secretlondon (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's an assertion in the heading of this section that DYK is important, but the post underneath the heading just ignores that claim. I've never understood why DYK is important and I've felt for a while that it should be eliminated, because of abuse like this. If DC is claiming DYK is important, some evidence would be useful. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind paid editing, what about our independence and the NPOV?

I'm sure this GibraltarPedia project is being done with the best of intentions, but I think it is extremely dangerous to Wikipedia and, if it is too late to stop this one, there should certainly be no more projects like this. The danger is exactly the same as the danger of accepting advertising: the perception, by our associate (the "client") and by the world at large, that our content will be slanted favourably to the client. From the Gibraltar Chronicle's story "A New Way to Market the Rock":

"As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds."

The Gibraltar Tourist Board is evidently expecting, not just more coverage but favourable coverage, and the ability to suppress anything unfavourable. Bang goes Wikipedia's independence and the neutral point of view. Even if, in practice, Gibraltar articles are not "taken over" by the GibraltarPedia project, bang goes the outside world's perception of our independence and neutrality. If we allow this sort of thing, we might just as well take ads. JohnCD (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• We shouldn't have negative or untrue articles. We should have neutral and true articles. I would assure anyone that if articles are negative and/or untrue that's it's very easy to go back to an earlier version, because that's what should be done. If someone's pushing favourable coverage, then blocks can be handed out, articles locked down, whatever. If someone's pushing fair coverage - well, good for them. Barnstars can be handed out, backs can be slapped, whatever. WilyD 09:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as that. What is fair and neutral is a matter of judgement, and not everyone may agree with the Gibraltar Tourist Board's view. That's why we have WP:COI rules. Would we "guarantee" to the representatives of a commercial company that they can revert anything they think "nasty"? Wikipedia should not have this sort of relationship with any subject of our articles. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is as simple as that. The COI guideline says what I'm saying. And yes, I think we can "guarantee that Wikipedia has an element of self-regulation" - it does. Everyone can (and many people do) edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. Or at the behest of someone who does. What matters is whether or not they're doing so in an appropriate way. And we already have lots of remedies if they're not. What you're looking for simply isn't there. WilyD 10:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like this whole situation, but I can't say precisely why. It just leaves me feeling off. Maybe it's the idea of a certain topic getting undue weight in DYK - I noticed it with Monmouth when that was happening but had no idea there was an actual effort to promote it. Maybe it's somebody (potentially) abusing their position at Wikimedia for financial gain. Maybe it's people viewing Wikipedia as free advertising advertising. GiantSnowman 10:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• The trustee in question as apparently stepped down. WilyD 11:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Could we please just start an RFC already? I would do it myself but I can't figure out how to work the system. There are so many discussions about this in different places, covering different issues. Getting every issue in the same place just seems like the logical thing to do. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• @WilyD: you say " What you're looking for simply isn't there." What I'm seeing, which certainly is there, is a project for "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia." Wikipedia is absolutely not for marketing anything. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• What you're asserting that says it also doesn't say. We don't host ads, but we can't help that articles do provide exposure for tourism (indeed, the location of my first date with my wife was chosen from the Wikipedia article, which was a perfectly suitable article). If someone's writing ads - we can delete the ads, block them, whatever. (If you know of any, I can do either of those, and am perfectly happy to). If people are writing good articles, because they want exposure - well, good articles are good artices, and that's all there is. We can't (nor should we) police intent. Only practice. WilyD 11:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's a delicate balance. We want to partner with organisations, locations, etc. to help improve related content (it being the main aim, after all). But at the same time advertising can take many forms; if a tourism board is offering a real life prize for the most related content added to the wiki, which includes extra points for promotion on the main page, that is verging on the line. As you say; any article could be an advert for something, and so long as it's neutral (note; above you suggest it should be neutral rather than negative - that's fallacious as we record negative things in a neutral way perfectly well. There is nothing wrong with negative info); that isn't an issue. The problem comes from other forms of promotion; if a neutral article is created and promoted to the main page that is normally not an issue - if lots of articles are created & promoted to the main page, on related subjects, with a prize being offered by the subject... that is an issue unresolved. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not "asserting" it says that, it does say it, it's a direct quote. It also says it is "effectively marketing but done at the lowest possible cost." Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're asserting that it's in contradiction to what WP:SOAP says, and it's not. Neutral, encyclopaedic articles can nonetheless promote a tourist destination. Cancun makes it seem like a nice vacation spot - because it is. Doesn't mean we should delete Cancun (we should not). WilyD 13:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is overly simplistic to equate marketing with promotion and NPOV violations. Some large corporations that are proud of their history have a dedicated historian or librarian that is part of marketing. Many "neutral" articles can be quite promotional, if the company has a positive reputation in reliable sources. Whether it's for the media, Twitter or a product data-sheet, marketing is just a matter of providing content the reader wants.

So long as we openly allow PR to directly edit, PR will follow our nature to push the envelope and "use" Wikipedia for advertising/promotion. When we establish a permission-based approach (ie WP:BRIGHTLINE), then we establish a means to simply accept content that serves the reader and decline contributions that do not, leaving all final content decisions in the hands of an impartial editor. For every controversy like this, there's also a dozen companies with serious problems on their articles, but they're too afraid to do anything about it, because of the controversy.

I am a marketing professional and a frequent COI contributor. Corporate Minion 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• What about Gibraltar's competitors for tourism dollars, for example other municipalities who are interested in doing what Gibraltar did? They are now faced with the perception that they either have to kick up big bucks to Roger Bamkin or be left out in the cold.
• Are there no volunteers willing or able to to this work? Is Victuallers Ltd. displacing willing volunteers? Will we now see more and more Wikipedia insiders and those with connections trading volunteer work for paid consulting, while making money of the back of unsuspecting volunteers?

--KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comments further down indicate Wikipedians will write featured articles for a sandwich. Frankly, I'd do it for a hardroll filled with ketchup. Plenty of people make money off our work, through clones and mirrors, or printing it off as a book and selling it, or whatever else. Such is our fate. WilyD 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If their work suddenly becomes directed by paid consultants, capitalizing on their insider connections, that might change. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Taking (clearly identified) ads is less bad than taking advertorials. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but we don't even take ads, and one important reason is the fear that our editorial integrity would be compromised, or perceived to be compromised, by a wish to please the advertisers, or not to offend them. That same fear is the reason for concern about a project presented as a joint venture between Wikipedia, or at least Wikimedia UK, and an organization whose stated intent is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia". JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Cultural partnerships"

Isn't this sort of thing just marketing under another name? "A Backstage Pass tour is an event aimed at sharing the expertise of real-world cultural institutions with our wiki-expertise. Principally this involves an organisation or interest group hosting a private tour for the benefit of local Wikimedians and in reciprocation we help improve the content on Wikipedia that is relevant to that organisation and its collection." The thing includes a free lunch. The reason an "organisation or interest group" participates in such a scheme is pure self-interest, and the prospect of free exposure in Wikipedia. It's a view of Wikipedia as a marketing instrument. Once that view takes hold, Wikipedia's credibility (such as it is) is lost forever. JN466 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's defensible if what is being marketed is a cultural institution of that kind; but it's the start of a slippery slope, and when the "partner" or "client" is a tourist board we are definitely too far down the slope. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat for the benefit of those who haven't read it yet. When Clive Finlayson commented on the removal of anything "nasty" in reply to a question from the press, he was referring to vandalism, which of course will be reverted, but somehow this has been construed to meaning the sanitation of articles of anything that may show Gibraltar in a bad light... Somebody over at Talk:Gibraltarpedia was asking why there was nothing on crime rates in Gibraltar for example, well that's because no one has got round to it yet but look, it's on the to-do list and I hope that someone writes about that soon as it's just as notable. We do however, already have an article that reports on how a man died following an explosion next to the cruise terminal and another reports on the government's controversial decision to demolish a site of historical importance to make way for affordable housing... This is hardly "favourable coverage" [sic] of Gibraltar now is it? But that's what happened and that's how Wikipedia shows it, as is. As for DYK, in no way has Gibraltar been getting "undue weight in DYK" [sic]. If a Gibraltar-related article has appeared on the main page it's because it's new/expanded and has met the DYK criteria after following the usual nomination process. There's a good number of quality articles been written by some very dedicated and hard working contributors so there'll be a good number of DYK noms. Blame the DYK rules not the editors who are dedicating so many hours to Wikipedia's cause with their fantastic contributions! --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

{EC} I don't think the two are comparable. I can't figure out exactly why, but one seems like promotion of a place, and the other of culturally significant works of art. Being incentivised by a free lunch and access to things which would be significant even outside the auspices of the institutions which hold them, is very different to focussing on a specific location with an incentive so large as a free trip. Also, Backstage Pass events rarely offer rewards, although if they do, it's usually a book token or some other trivial prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I mediated a content dispute on Gibraltar once, where Spanish and British views clashed, and it was quite as contentious as Northern Ireland. To be honest, that was the first thing I remembered when I read that statement. As for the frequency of Gibraltar hooks on the main page, the media clearly do not see it this way. They feel we are plugging Gibraltar, as El País put it. And from what I have read over the past few days here, we have someone paid to recruit volunteers to write articles that can be linked to via QR codes, the production of which he also provides consultancy for. JN466 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: It is one thing if someone from an institution like that creates an article, editing with a COI. This is a situation we know; while it causes problems, these are usually pretty obvious problems. But what is Wikimedia UK doing promoting this sort of thing, and getting Wikipedians to accept a free lunch in return for editing services? There is something off here.

I'd like to quote the Slate piece again:

Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes.

Wikipedia goes down this road at its peril. JN466 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibmetal77, one article every 2 days incentivised by a points system with the ultimate reward of a free trip is clearly undue weight. The contributors don't appear to be doing anything maliciously, or at least don't see anything wrong with this, and that's a good thing, we should definitely AGF of them; and yes, we're getting a lot of good content. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be explaining the issue to the editors, especially the newer ones. It saddens me to see so many people sacrificing what I believe are core principles for the sake of articles. I am sure these editors would happily volunteer to write for the sake of it, that's what we all do here, because we love the project. The issue isn't them, it's the whole affair and it's relationship to a tourism board. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell. --JN466 12:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is over two years since I raised the GLAM program on the conflicts of interest noticeboard. The response we received then is worth rereading now. My experience as a participant in several of these events is that articles such as the Hoxne Hoard and Tipu's Tiger have benefited from the involvement of museum curators (declaration - I've had free lunches in the British museum canteen, and there are some train fares that I'm entitled to claim from the UK chapter). The important thing is to keep the focus on the collection and not the institution, and to make sure that the dialogue is with the museum curators not the marketing department. Wikipedia benefits from involving experts in this way. Where I suspect that the GLAM program needs a reminder is only to offer non-trivial intangible, academic or trivial prizes, and to be strict about keeping the focus on the collection and access to the experts and not to drift into promoting the institution. We shouldn't be having a problem about this, at least in London the limiting factor is Wikipedians who want to get involved in GLAM activities, not museums who are prepared to work with us. But I would dispute Jayen466's point "The reason an "organisation or interest group" participates in such a scheme is pure self-interest, and the prospect of free exposure in Wikipedia". My experience of the curators that I've met is that they take very seriously their professional duty to make their collection available to the world. Of course we need to steer clear of the museum marketing departments, but the professional aims of the best curators are fully compatible with ours. ϢereSpielChequers 13:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Writing articles about the content parallels the complaint here. If I know a museum has a lot of good artifacts, I'm more likely to want to go there (British Museums are generally free, but I usually donate a couple quid). By having neutral, well written articles on the collection, you're still promoting the Museum. The question is whether that intrinsic promotion is a bad thing. I'll suggest it's not, and since it's unavoidable anyways, it's not worth losing sleep over. But clearly not everyone agrees. WilyD 13:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to those old discussions (I also read the one about the Hoxne hoard on Iridescent's talk page, and rather liked Iridescent's argumentation). FWIW, I agree with much of what you said then, and are saying now; and the distinction between the collection and the institution, and curators and marketing departments, is key. Question though: what do you mean when you say the GLAM programme should only offer non-trivial prizes? JN466 16:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for striking that; it makes more sense now. I agree that prizes should be symbolic rather than monetary. The key problem is that Wikimedia UK, or some people within WMUK, have been marketing Wikipedia as a marketing tool, as per the presentation posted on Jimbo's talk. Hence the articles that appeared in the Gibraltarian press, about a new way to market the Rock, and marketing Gibraltar as a tourism product through Wikipedia, etc. It's not wise to do that: not to governments, not to museums. JN466 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not wild about paid consultancy gigs for Wikipedians or anything like that and have found some of the issues raised recently quite concerning. But let me explain how the GLAM thing has worked for me. Recently, I went to the British Library on a Monday afternoon (what can I say, working from home has some flexibility). In return for a cup of coffee (I don't drink coffee) and a tour around an exhibition I would probably have gone to view anyway, I created three minor stubs: National Reports Collection, Luis López Domínguez and Eric Millar. A scholar on illuminated manuscripts, an Argentine political writer and an institutional collection of corporate reports. I'm now obviously a soiled whore, a paid lackey of Big Libraries; no better than an industry-funded lobbyist. Next I'll be telling you that smoking doesn't really cause cancer. People working with GLAM institutions are trying to find a way to actually improve Wikipedia: increase the quality and depth of content, fight against systemic bias and generally "make the Internet suck less". That we've reached a state where we're getting very close to conflating the odd free sandwich or train fare subsidy given to good faith community members by non-profit or state-owned cultural institutions with letting the doors open for marketing men to take over the 'pedia shows that our community is completely unprepared to have reasonable and sane conversations about what actually counts as COI.

Certainly with a body like the British Library or the Smithsonian or the National Archives, there's a pretty admirable overlap in our missions. We need to make sure we don't jump into ill-advised collaborations, but I don't see any particular reason why chapters or individuals shouldn't be working with cultural institutions in a mutually beneficial way to support the kind of grand mission we're all supposed to be here for: sharing knowledge. When Wikipedia doesn't work with traditional sources of knowledge, we're just a bunch of unreliable, often anonymous Randy in Boise types; when we do, we suddenly morph into evil paid lackeys of... museums? Sorry – not buying it. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and suggesting the editors and institutions involved might be purely self-serving is unfair. The content improvements are great to see. What would be worth doing is exploring a "best practices" guide for editors and institutions entering into this sort of situation; things to do (or not), sensible aims and so on. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:GLAM getting started. Zzzzzzz! Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I went to some of Backstage Pass tours of museums in New York and DC. I do not recall any free lunches but I confess that I sample their free chocolate and I grab some free National Archive tattoos for my kids. Those extravagant gifts did not sway my decisions of scanning few dozen NARA prints and adding them to articles like Daniel N. Morgan, etc. I also have to confess of helping with the upload of 18 thousand images donated by Walters Art Museum. I did not receive my lunch yet, but a secret cabal with surely sinister "cultural partnerships" agenda added the images to 1632 articles on few dozens wikipedias. I apologize for my inexcusable behavior, and hope that it will not cause "Wikipedia's credibility (such as it is)" to be "lost forever". --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Errant. If you think there should be a best practices guide for GLAM then you might want to check out the "Best Practices" tab at GLAM on the Outreach wiki. Last time I looked it wasn't too far from the COI advice we got in 2010 that I referenced earlier in this thread. But if you have any concerns, that would be the place to raise them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow are we getting off-topic. This entire section is rather off-topic. Also, could we please all remain civil? Getting your hackles raised up (everyone, me included) is not really promoting open dialogue. Which would be nice. Even if the open dialogue consists of: "I think you're wrong, this is a good thing. Please let me know why you think otherwise. Like here, only in a more appropriate setting if multiple people want to discuss the issue. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't be daft, Tom. No one is suggesting you are a whore and a lackey for writing those stubs. That's good stuff. JN466 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but you seem to be saying that if someone wants to get "points" for writing Crime in Gibraltar, Corruption in Gibraltar, Racism in Gibraltar, or other "promotional" subjects about Gibraltar—or maybe expanding articles about the many historically important buildings, battles, or people—then they would be just lackeys of the state, because Gibraltar officially supports the idea of people writing whatever they want about the city in Wikipedia, which makes us a thoroughly compromised advertising venue.

I think the Slate writer is being deliberately provocative (saying that the sky's going to fall sells well) and that you're over-reacting. If we could get a hundred cities to inspire new editors with as little cost to us as them sending out a few T-shirts or a meal, then we should do it ASAP. The only restrictions that we need to worry about are making sure that they're not deliberately and overtly pushing a POV. If they accept "Ethnic strife in ____" on the same terms that they accept "Environmental protection in ____", then that's really all we need to worry about.

Do you know what's missing from this long discussion? Any actual diffs of someone whitewashing an article. I assume that this absence means that it's not happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice that all the three in your top line are redlinks, and I doubt if any of GibraltarPedia's new recruits will be hurrying to write them or to nominate them for DYK. You can get bias (of the WP:UNDUE kind) without whitewashing, e.g. by setting up a joint project with a marketing organization like a tourist board to recruit new contributors specifically to write about tourist attractions. It's a fuzzy area: if the tourist board did that off their own bat it would be hard to object, though there would be COI concerns. It's when it is presented as a joint venture with Wikipedia that it becomes worrying - the outside world doesn't distinguish between Wikipedia, the WMF, and WMF-UK. "Here's a way to do cheap marketing: pay some money in the right place and Wikipedia will come and help boost your tourism!" is the unfortunate message that seems to be getting out. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If the tourist board did all this themselves, we'd have people pitching a fit over at WP:COIN because the tourist board's employees are getting paid to promote the city.

We don't require a neutral encyclopedia. We require individual, separate articles to be neutral. You can write all the articles you want on either "positive" or "negative topics, so long as those individual articles themselves are NPOV.

I agree that it is undesirable for anyone to believe that this is an official English-Wikipedia-sponsored project, but I've got no problem with it being an official City-of-Gibraltar-sponsored project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with JohnCD. This is not about whitewashing articles, but about providing exposure. I am sure you are familiar with the concept of product placement. Brands pay money just to have their brand shown on the screen, or to have their name in the news. This is what we are doing for Gibraltar. Hell, just because you demanded diffs of whitewashing – which is not actually what the substance of the complaint is about, but which would make things even worse – I've been looking at the Gibraltar DYKs this morning, found a statement that was not in the cited source, did an hour's research, and now know that there are interesting Neanderthal caves in Gibraltar, and that Neanderthals lasted longer in Gibraltar than any other known place in the world ... it's working. :) There are probably just as interesting archaeological and palaeontological digs, or other features of interest, 100 miles up or down the Spanish coast, but the Gibraltarian ones are the ones I now know about. And an image caption in the article has a helpful link to Gibraltarpedia. It's all about exposure. JN466 12:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with editors getting free nick-nacks in exchange for creating or improving articles, what I have a problem with are the efforts to flood DKY and to promote themselves ahead of others.\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most Wikipedians eat lunch every day, and very few reveal who paid for it. As long as it is allowed to edit anonymously, we can't blame those who are honest enough to declare openly that they are paid editors. The only result would be to drive them into anonymity.

If an article cites a book or a museum as a reference, that is a promotion of it as a source for more information, which is a good thing. It helps the curious to find the information they are looking for.

It is also important that we have good articles about books, journals, news media, and cultural institutions, so readers can evaluate the cited references. --LA2 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Museums are about sharing knowledge, so is wikipedia. It makes sense that we collaborate, and if one or the other buys someone a sandwich, I can live with that; it is self evidently not a conflict of interest if you are writing about some of the subjects of the museum. It's a completely separate issue from paid editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The average PR agency budget is about $7-$20k a month. The PR professional on the corporate side is paid an annual salary of $60-$100k a year. When their boss or client has a Wikipedia problem they want fixed, this can lead to an entire corporate bureaucracy leaning down on someone to figure out a solution to the negative content on their page. I think when we start talking about COI from a free lunch or chocolate, we've missed the boat when you put things in perspective. Am I wrong? Corporate Minion 01:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK has always been a spam fest. Some do it because they like obscure flora or fauna. Others do it to promote reams of nationalist books. (Yes, WP:BK is lame enough that one can have an article on almost any book.) It's now done to promote tourist attractions in a certain country. The only thing unusual about this event was the timing. Funny exchange:[3]

“

• Anonymous Coward (1): Wikipedia is a very noble idea that is polluted polluted by the commercial interests of a few.
• Anonymous Coward (2): and by the propaganda interests of many.
• Anonymous Coward (3): And some people are just shocked - shocked! to find this out....

”

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just found this amusing DYK from Jan 2011 "... that Saudi Arabian officials detained a vulture (example pictured) and accused it of spying for Israel?" No spam there. Extremely neutral and aiming to improve the sump of all human knowledge. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a pre-approval process for joint projects like this

See WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why two projects

Why do we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar and Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA? It makes a page like Talk:Flat Bastion Road look rather bizarre, and it seems pointless to have two projects for the exact same group of articles. Fram (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one is for editors who know how to monetize their edits and the other one is for the dummies who contribute freely? The better question is: why are so many pages on Wikipedia advertising a domain name not owned by WMF but by a for-profit consultancy [4]? There is intellectual property and monetary value in domain names, you know... Tijfo098 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibmetal77, one of the driving forces behind Gibraltarpedia, was recently adding DYKs to the wikiproject page, so they were certainly aware of its existence. According to this edit by Victuallers, Wikiproject Gibraltar is included in the scope of Gibraltarpedia. This seems similar to the use of separate Monmouthpedia pages rather than using the existing Wales wikiproject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But the scope of Monmouthpedia and the Wales Wikiproject are not exactly the same. There is no difference in scope in this case though. Fram (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's completely incorrect. Have you read Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA? It clearly states, "The area of interest includes the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Spanish municipalities along the coast of the Bay of Gibraltar, the northernmost coast of Morocco and Ceuta." That is far wider than WikiProject Gibraltar, with which I've been involved for a long time. Gibraltarpedia incorporates content from at least three different WikiProjects (Gibraltar, Morocco and Spain). Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the recent negative press coverage, any Gibraltarpedia templates on talk pages should be replaced by the more standard Wikiproject Gibraltar template (or removed if there is already a Wikiproject Gibraltar template present)? I am bothered by the large external URL on the template and I am sure that I am not alone in that feeling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support this. Fram (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted a prominent notice at WikiPoject Gibraltar that was obviously intended to funnel the contributors to the "right" WikiProject [5]. I've also taken the spammy template to TfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to do that. The two are not the same. And it's not an external URL, it's merely a redirect to Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. It's deeply misleading to describe it as "an external URL" since it's not going to any external destination. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, your revert and edit summary seems awfully close to exerting page ownership. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects are one a the few types of Wikipedia pages that are effectively WP:OWNED by their participants, so don't necessarily object to that. But I object to the indiscriminate spamming of article talk pages. Look at Talk:Cylindrophyllum comptonii. According to the article, that grows in South Africa. But then someone decided that GibraltarpediA.org somehow covers the whole planet and they can spam any article with their branding and advertisement campaign. That is not okay with me. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody owns any page, period. Prioryman explicitly explained his revert through edit summary that it's made because Tijfo098 is not a project participant, then Prioryman is reinforcing the fact that project participants own the page. Since this is an open project which anyone can join or leave at any time, it's even more bizarre that Prioryman could exhibit such a clear approach to exert claims that an non-project participant cannot edit the page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects are groups of people, not pages or subject areas. It's pretty much nonsensical for one group of people to say that the other group of people is "within their scope". It is perfectly acceptable for all the articles that are within Group #1's scope to also be within Group #2's scope (e.g., all of the articles supported by the folks at WikiProject Alaska could also be supported by the folks at WikiProject United States), but the groups of people themselves (the WikiProjects) shouldn't be within anyone's scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA has now been started. The input of previously uninvolved editors could help to get a detached and more objective viewpoint here, but everyone is of course welcome to give their opinion. Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What to do with an obvious sockpuppet but unknown puppetmaster?

I've come across a very obvious sockpuppet which I believe is very likely to be that of a banned user; however, I don't know which specific banned user it is. What is the best way to proceed? Prioryman (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

do nothing. you can't just throw accusations around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd send it to SPI. Sure, you don't know the puppetmaster, but the clerks can sort it out once the checkusers act. Not commenting on the merits of the sockpuppet theory here as no evidence has been presented. --Rschen7754 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

CUs will tell you that CUs aren't for fishing expeditions. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, then yeah, it's a really obvious sockpuppet. And if it's a sockpuppet of who I think it is, all the links are gonna be stale even if you had actual provable suspicions it was them. Though I would say have a CU make sure they're not running through a proxy. Because that would be an immediate reason to ban them, sockpuppet or not. Might get lucky. Silverseren^C 08:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. If the IP geolocates to California, this would be entirely consistent with previous locations. Ankh.Morpork 11:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, what exactly has this devious scoundrel done to earn your ire? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's the sockpuppet himself - I invite others to review his contibutions (KlickitatGlacier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) which show that he is clearly (1) not a new user and (2) clearly involved with Wikipediocracy (note in particular this edit here at the start of the Gibraltarpedia controversy). I believe this is likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Vigilant. KlickitatGlacier has not at any point denied that he is a sockpuppet, though I've challenged him repeatedly. Prioryman (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an undisclosed clean start? Cla68 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that this Vigilant sockpuppet also demonstrated involvement with Wikipediocracy. Ankh.Morpork 11:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Such accusations belong at WP:SPI, not here. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  11:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I'm not User:Vigilant. You're clearly on a fishing expedition. You want me banned because I'm asking inconvenient questions about the yet another WMUK embarrassment. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, "(1) not a new user and (2) clearly involved with Wikipediocracy" is probably a not a small set of editors (only because Wikipediocracy gets thrown around so often around here, I don't have an account there to check myself). You don't say why you think he "is likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Vigilant" in particular. You'll have to disclose this information at WP:SPI and/or show that KlickitatGlacier is disruptive. The latter would probably allow a block regardless of whether sockpuppetry can be proved. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Policy and long-standing precedent explicitly forbid the use of alternate accounts in projectspace. This is obviously an alternate account. Can someone explain why this account should be permitted to contribute to project-level discussions in violation of policy? MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • How can we tell the difference between an "alternative account" and a "clean start" account (mentioned above)? And the project space policy is not absolute "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." The only potential violation I found is [6], which indeed might give a hint that he could be trolling. (But note that Newyorkbrad was being sarcastic too!) Other than that he edited the GLAM wikiproject and WP:AN (duh), neither of which is even discouraged from doing with an alt account. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas or disputes, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny" (emphasis mine).

      So bottom line, if KlickitatGlacier continues editing projectspace, they likely will be blocked by myself or others. NW (Talk) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, NW, what good does blocking me do? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that you'll just create a new account or were you just referring to your edit history? Silverseren^C 20:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at his GLAM edits more closely, it appears KlickitatGlacier went [7] there to stir trouble. I would support topic banning him from anything WMF-UK related anywhere on Wikipedia. By the way, based on his edits before this controversy, KlickitatGlacier has a bit of expertise in rocket engines. Does that ring a bell to those familiar with various banned editors? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. He wasn't site-banned but was topic-banned. He left in a huff surrounding community sanctions in late August 2010 as "Retired". He received a specific AN sanction that forbids him from using any undisclosed accounts after he exhausted the community's patience. Diff with sanctions ==> User:Wolfkeeper.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• When he last visited ANI, this editor attempted to have Indeffed an English user on the basis of his Obvious-Sock-Is-Obvious observations about a poster in a Wikipediocracy thread. It was subsequently demonstrated through circumstantial evidence that the guy he wanted banned off was a Joe Job that used American English. No apology from the purge instigator, User:Prioryman. Now he's back with more Obvious-Sock-Is-Obvious dramamongering. Time to topic-ban this partisan from ANI. Carrite (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper re-opened. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, if it's a sockpuppet of Wolfkeeper/Rememberway, then it is not only violating the community restriction but plainly evading and indef block because Rememberway was unblocked after a discussion and then reblocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. [8] Tijfo098 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow! First I'm Vigilant, then I go backpacking to two days and now I'm Wolfkeeper? Jeeze people, get a grip. I'm not Wolfkeeper, nor Vigilant, and this is a fishing expedition. All I did was ask some questions about WMUK. Apparently they were 'uncomfortable' questions, and now Prioryman wants me banned. He should be ashamed of himself. With all these news stories coming out around the world maybe some of you honest admins might want to ask a few questions too. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Every time you comment, you sound more and more like the sock of someone. There is absolutely no doubt that you're someone's sock and not a new user. Silverseren^C 00:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 00:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

KlickitatGlacier, we hardly knew ye. You lived your wikilife like a falling star, blazing a bright path across the Wikipedia firmament, then suddenly extinguished, leaving us all in darkness. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's his own fault for revisiting old disputes. At least Prioryman has followed the rules and engaged in a seemingly endless series of all-new disputes... Franamax (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So the moral of this story is that its ok to be a douchebag as long as one is a douchebag in an entirely new direction, unrelated to any and all prior douchebaggery. We need to write down all these unwritten rules. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And add "douche bag" to the growing list of incivilities that one can get away with using because they aren't, apparently, uncivil enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, all editors are equal. Some are just more equal than others. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Four legs good, two legs not so bad? Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, now it's written down. :-) Baseball complained at AIV that someone called him a douchebag in an edit summary. Two admins (I and one other before me) said that wasn't vandalism - not that there's no remedy for it, just essentially that it didn't belong at AIV. Fortunately for BB, a third admin said they'd block the editor if they did it again (the editor had been warned after the comment). BB said we'd be hearing from him if the editor made another personal attack. So, perhaps someone should enhance the current essay and address all these salient points. If you do, make sure you sort out whether it's "douchebag" or "douche bag". In our article, we spell it as two words, but in the essay it's spelled as one (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Template_talk:Non-free_Crown_copyright#Request_to_reword_template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Is this now considered acceptable from an administrator?

This discussion has degenerated into vitriol and uselessness; no further admin action is going to be taken. Bring it to Arbcom or step outside and get a breath of fresh air. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

From an email I recently received from an administrator, who may or may not choose to identify himself: "You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit."

Surely the time has come when administrators ought at least to be held to the same standards of behaviour as those they police so aggressively? How many other editors are receiving similarly abusive emails from administrators I wonder? Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That should be a blockable offense. Ryan Vesey 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one who was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic", it would be hard to disagree. But this is an administrator we're discussing here, different rules apply. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, was this just a single message? Or part of a larger back-and-forth conversation? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't consider that. My comment above was based on the assumption that the email was either out of the blue or was a single message stemming from an on-wiki discussion. I also assumed that the quoted text was the entire content of the message. The "blockable" aspect might change depending on the additional information. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The quoted text was indeed the entire content of the message. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no "back-and-forth conversation", and it wasn't a single message. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what was the context of the message, then? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer your question after you tell me why that matters. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter what you said to him, then it doesn't matter what he said to you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my experience, a construction involving "you know what?" is generally used when a party in a disagreement has become extremely frustrated and at the end of their rope. I am curious as to what would have prompted such an outburst. And given your well-known antagonism to those of the sysop persuasion, I think context is even more important. The remark taken alone is certainly unacceptable, but the conduct of both parties in a disagreement can and should come under examination. One remark out of its relevant context obfuscates the full story. Bretonbanquet sums it up nicely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since you ask this question on this page, with this level of detail, I assume you're looking for opinions rather than action. That's obviously not acceptable, regardless of the circumstances, but those circumstances matter tremendously in whether this is a case of (a) Admin X needs to chill out, (b) Admin X needs to take a wikibreak, (c) Admin X needs to be aware that if they do it again they'll probably be desysopped, (d) Admin X needs to resign the tools or they'll have them taken away, or (e) Admin X is desysopped now and blocked. It's impossible to know which of those responses is appropriate without knowing more than you can divulge on-wiki. If I'm wrong and you actually want some action, you should forward the entire email chain to ArbCom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  I see. So it's now considered perfectly acceptable for administrators to send abusive emails to non-administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a spectacularly wrong way to read my comment. If you're in the mood to argue, find someone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Am I correct in assuming you notified them via email of this thread? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  Why would I notify Mark of this thread? I never mentioned him. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Also what Floq said. I know Mal and ArbCom have a very loving relationship and all, but this is up their alley. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia e-mail should be abolished. It's a place for 'team editing' co-ordination. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I'm the one who sent Malleus that e-mail. He had called me "fucking pissy" a few days before, and I was offended and lost my temper. Regardless of what he has said or done, my comments were grossly uncalled for, and I'm ashamed of myself for making them. I did not live up to the standard that I have always tried to hold others to, and I deeply regret that. If the community believes that I should be sanctioned for this, I will accept the chosen action without complaint. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Malleus, what do you think? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Mark should come entirely clean and admit to his second email to me, which in its way was hardly any better. But I'm simply looking for a little bit of honesty, and a clear understanding that, whatever the perceived provocation, administrators have no special rights to send abusive emails without being sanctioned, and if Mark persists then he will be sanctioned. Which seems to be missing here in the "Oh, it's Malleus, must be his fault" attitude I see here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You have my permission to post any of my e-mails publicly. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Post them yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

What I said in the second e-mail was "Apologies for my e-mail last night, I wish I hadn't lost my temper. I'll resolve to merely avoid people that irritate me in the future." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think Mark should voluntarily give up his mop for three months, but on the other hand, I think Malleus should be blocked for two weeks for calling Mark a "fucking pussy". And maybe throw in an interaction ban between the two pbp 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I realize this is AN, but could we try to pay closer attention before commenting? He didn't call Mark a pussy, he said one of Mark's actions was pissy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be sanctioned, report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it had to happen eventually - I finally agree with GoodDay on something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, close it, let Mark get away with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done, but I think some type of action needs to be taken. The action would have been inappropriate even on wiki. To hide that action behind an abusive email is worse. I like Mark, but allowing an action like this without consequence opens the door to similar actions, not by Mark because I don't believe he will do so again, but by others. Ryan Vesey 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

He admits to saying it and that he shouldn't have. It wasn't on-wiki...I would say if you want to pursue this, MF, arbcom would be the way to go. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Grow a thicker skin, Malleus. You clearly provoked him, most likely for the purposes of immediately running to WP:ANI and making a scene exactly like this. If anything you're the one that needs to be sanctioned here, preferably with a long, long block given your record. Jtrainor (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the thickness of my skin, but about how many others have been similarly abused by administrators, and their complaints similarly dismissed? Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I wonder if it's as long as the list of people who've been abused by you, MF. You come here and moan about someone calling you names, and then you call someone an arsehole in your edit summary - and you expect people to take you seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus blocked

I have blocked Malleus for one week for this edit summary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

While I have less tolerance for abusive language on Wikipedia than I used to, Malleus was clearly provoked. If you're going to start blocking, there should be blocks all around, including Jtrainor for going out of his way to provoke Malleus. Ryan Vesey 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the action that led to the block occurred in a forum where (at least in this instance) unilateral action is out of line. If you felt this block was necessary, you should have discussed it. Sometimes we need to use some common sense and make sure our actions are appropriate to the situation. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)VERY bad block People in primary school playgrounds go unpunished for MUCH worse than that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• And once again, Wikipedia demonstrates that it is completely dysfunctional. Poorly thought out email, poorly thought out report to AN, poorly thought out intentional trolling comment by Jtrainor, poorly thought out response by Malleus, and poorly thought out block. Congratulations, everyone, on the trifecta. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a decent block to me. Malleus should have been blocked for his abusive comment on Mark's talk page which started this off. For him to turn around and complain about getting the same back from Mark is pretty silly (especially as this is entirely out of character for Mark, while Malleus' post was entirely in-character). The fact that he continued to make rude remarks here also justifies a block. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have to agree. Obviously the admin that didn't get blocked took the comment to an email, because if he said it on Wiki, he knew it would cause an immediate.... something. I kind of think that Bongwarrior blocking a guy in an admin forum without asking, "hey should I block this guy?" warrants a block on Bongwarrior for letting his emotions take over. You guys have GOT to apply the same standards to admins as you do other editors or you will just get continually seen as bad actors in Wikipedia despite your good actions. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Arse" is a very mild form of "ass", it also sounds more clever with a British accent. Let's just skip to the unblock now and get this over with, we all know its gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rarely am I wont to defend Malleus, especially when he posts such a hypocritical complaint, but in this case, bad block. This can't help but to inflame drama. Resolute 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have undone this block. I gave the blocking admin a chance to do so, and they declined. This is clearly a bad (or at least excessive) block. Would any other editor have been blocked for a week for a mildly incivil edit summary after being provoked? No. If this ends up at AC, so be it. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• When Malleus isn't provoked or told what to do, he can work pretty well (I watched him turn an article into an FA over the course of this month). But when he does repeat offenses for incivility, I support blocks of him. Perhaps not 1 week, but probably 31-48 hours. I believe the block was justified; had this been his first offense he would've been warned at the most, but this is a long-term pattern for which blocks are perfectly reasonable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The only person that I can see that should've been threatened with a block here was JTrainor, who knew exactly what he was doing with that inflammatory posting to which Malleus responded. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think only Malleus has true responsibility for that edit summary. It's easy to provoke him, true, and it's his personality to get provoked, as I've observed. However, it's just not right to fault others for his behavior. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry but that is ridiculous, Jasper. Or even bollocks. <g> The involved admins and even you are aware of the background, not just of this instance but more generally. There is more to it than the edit summary. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have we learned nothing from the ArbCom case? Bongwarrior started a discussion of the block above, which had been going for 16 minutes before you charged in and lifted the block for bad reasons (is it unjustified, or of too long a duration? - it can't be both as you state above), despite several other another admin endorsing the block. This should go to ArbCom. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Nick... it should have gone HERE, first. Just like an editor making an unsupported edit, an admin taking an administrative action on an admin forum should be well supported by the crowd. Most of you have 'the bit', and so any of you could have made the block. The question is whether you are in a consensus about whether Malleus' edit summary was deserving of a block. The block was done hastily, and I believe emotionally, and should have been done in consultation with the rest of you given the nature of the complaint. Now rather than dwell on this, can you issue trouts all around and say Civility is not optional, yet part of Civility requires that we be patient with those who act incivil at times? There's plenty of blame to go around, so if you plan to block everyone involved, then get consensus for it. If you plan to forgive and warn, then get consensus for that. Either way... be consistent. You send a very bad message when an admin can get away with saying fuck you, while an editor can't say arsehole. -- Avanu (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. He blocked him and then started a discussion. If there was a situation where Malleus needed to be blocked here, the discussion should have happened first. Perhaps it can happen now. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for admins to start a discussion prior to blocking, especially in pretty clear-cut cases such as this (an editor which a history of making abusive comments, and has been admonished by ArbCom for this, continuing to do so on a central noticeboard). Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you if this was a "clear-cut case". Which it obviously wasn't. Witness huge thread with various views. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks are supposed to be Preventative. Not Punative as this one clearly was. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks can be, as here, both punitive and preventative. When Malleus is provoked, blocking him prevents further of this until he wears off the prevocation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• So we should block Malleus every time someone baits him, just in case he responds with an incivility? Have a think about that one, seriously. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but if he can't take the high road and results to the same behavior as the alleged "baiter", nobody should be hesitant to block him because they don't feel like dealing with the drama that comes with dealing with him. I agree that his comment in that summary should have resulted in a block. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

News just in - editors are human. If they're insulted, they tend to bite back. But you're saying we should block the baitee because they bite back (and because of who they are), but not the original baiter? Really? Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in the hell did I say that? :-) I did not comment on that side of the matter. But since you asked, of course all users who are attacking, harassing or otherwise causing a disruptive environment should be blocked. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes. WP:BAIT does state that the baited one should resist the bait. If it turns out that he takes the bait, then he's blocked to prevent more of this. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don;t think that quoting an essay here really helps, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, if blocks are going to occur here, I believe Jtrainor, Mark, and Malleus should all receive one. Otherwise none should. To cherry pick Malleus from this bunch just because he is Malleus is out of line. Ryan Vesey 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of liabilities to blockage, I believe that in increasing order of block-worthiness: JTrainor, Mark Arsten, Malleus. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume that JTrainor meant not to do a baiting/provocation... and you want him to be blocked for that? Mark should've known much better and the only reason I'm not asking for his block is his acknowledgement and apology. Most importantly they didn't commit repeat offenses unless I'm missing something here. And no, I don't think Malleus' personality is an excuse for what he was blocked for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally I don't really think that this leaves much room for WP:AGF... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He meant well, but to be honest the next time he does it is going to end with sanctions. Has it been a long-term problem with him?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"repeat offences"? Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Mark and JTrainor do their respective offenses here (e-mail PAs and baiting respectively) previously too? The answer to that question was yes for Malleus, hence why I supported the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure any blocks were necessary, though if MF is blocked then Mark should probably be blocked too. I don't see JTrainor's comment as blockworthy - we're supposed to be adults here and we all face comments that wind us up. The big idea is to control yourself. Some can do that, some resort to name-calling. If you can't control your reactions to something you don't like, then you're going to get yourself into difficulty, admin or non-admin. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Mark acknowledged his mistake... and yes, next time he should get blocked. Now I think of it, "grow thicker skin" is quite provocative and a second offense should lead to a block for him too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that no-one should have been blocked here. I mean, honestly, look at the sequence of events here. Mark reacted (very inappropriately) to something that Malleus said, and later on Malleus reacted (mildly incivilly) to something that JTrainor said. The result? Malleus gets blocked. Ludicrous. Can we close this now? Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) For sure, a repetition of the offense by either should probably be viewed dimly. But even though MF has a history of incivility, I thought the week-long block was a bit strong. That said, I'd take much more kindly to being told to grow a thicker skin than I would to being called an arsehole. This whole thing is pretty unedifying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, here's the view of a disinterested (and frankly uninterested) admin. No, Mark's e-mail wasn't well-considered, and as someone who's made intemperate remarks and gotten dragged to ANI (albeit for doing so at a banned user) this sort of thing happens. That it appears to be a one-off problem and he apologized for it would indicate it's not necessary to block him (I wasn't blocked for my episode either). Malleus' response, bringing it here, is fine; though I'd normally recommend ArbCom, I get why he wouldn't want to go that way. The edit summary was definitely not good, and it seems awfully strange to me that someone would say that after starting an AN thread involving incivility. He's under ArbCom restrictions, and a decision to block or not would fall within admin discretion; as the choice was to block, the block could conceivably be covered under AE; that it wasn't is probably more of an oversight than anything else. If it had been marked as an AE block, then I'd be the first to start calling for resignations, but it wasn't, so there's no point in doing so, but it was in no way a good precedent to set. Just like we aren't supposed to go protect/unprotect/discuss merits of protection, so it shouldn't be block/unblock/discuss merits of block (also shouldn't go unblock/block/discussion, just in case anyone wants to accuse me of being one-sided).
I'm not even going to get into whether certain things are or aren't offensive, because I think that's frankly a ridiculous debate. It should be self-evident that certain things are or aren't within any reasonable definition of civil discourse; however, the community will have to pull its head out of its ass to figure that out, and that's above my pay grade. Honestly, if I see any further attempt to debate the offensiveness of this or that remark, I'll shut it down and direct people here, because that's where such things should be figured out. In the meantime, I'll recommend everyone try what I'm doing right now; kicking back with a bottle of Tsingtao and reading a very interesting book on Aung San and his daughter. Not only interesting, but puts things in perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Generalizing this

Do emails sent via wikipedia "count" in the same way posts count or not? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that direct personal attacks via the interface falls under WP:NPA because NPA states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia", which thus includes the emailuser function.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe off-wiki harassment should be dealt with more severely, but harassment through email is certainly within the realm of things action can be taken over. The statement on Special:EmailUser/Example "A private log of this action will be retained for the purpose of preventing abuse, and can be viewed by certain privileged users. This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia Foundation staff can verify the recipient account" shows that clearly. Ryan Vesey 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) According to Civility policy there is no difference. So yes, they should count the same way. If there is an exception, it would be good to see it, and see the justification as to why. -- Avanu (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. So what it means is that these kinds of messages shouldn't be sent until one is an admin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How did you get to that conclusion? In fact, had Mark not replied to the e-mail acknowledging apology for it, and had it been seen by another admin, a block with e-mail disabled could've been possible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How did I come to the conclusion? — Malleus has another 2 entries in his block og, Mark gets none. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't take your comment as being in the context of the above, as this is about generalization. I would actually support blocking Mark had he not aplogized, as I said before.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This is generalized, because I've seen this before: "[Admin] is allowed to say this, because he was provoked. [User] gets instantaneous block because [user] lets himself be provoked" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't admins block admins? Because they fear the backlash. If we can, by perhaps a policy, eliminate the backlash from blocking an admin, this won't be a problem anymore.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of the causes. They stick together no matter what. Pigs on animal farm. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Very true. But if we made a policy stating that no-one can dispute a brief (12-hour) NPA block for an admin, or something similar, we'd really be holding admins to higher standards.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd need an RfC that would naturally be overrun by admins, just like all other measures limiting the ruling class' power will be blocked by that same ruling class. Hopeless. Therefore: be nice until you become an admin, then you can do whatever you want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An RfC might succeed even if we make that assumption, as non-admins outnumber admins by a lot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nyeah... all admins will refuse to implement it. So no, ain't gonna happen. Being an admin means being completely immune. Jackpot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right, would never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki e-mail should be abolished, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That could be a start, yes. At least we could plainly see the double standard right here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Never seen the point of it. Occasionally I get a constructive email, but in general as an editor, I never used it and as an admin, I simply get random abuse which I delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of e-mail. Perhaps we could have an RfC on that? Frankly, I like Mark and have never seen him causing trouble before, so I hate to say this but he should face at least some level of discipline here just for the sake of appearances. After all, admins should be the standard bearers here. However, we should take into account that (as far as I know) Mark doesn't have a history of this. AutomaticStrikeout 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose disabling EmailUser for everyone, as I often need to use it for matters that are not suitable for on-wiki discussion. However, it should be noted that even CheckUsers can't see the e-mail contents, only the fact that the user sent the email from a particular IP/user agent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC here. It's my first RfC, so I may not have done everything correctly. AutomaticStrikeout 01:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Bring it to ArbCom? Why? Been there, done that -- wasn't particularly useful. Nobody Ent 02:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Because here is certainly no better and if you bring the case there you can amuse yourself by making arbs take a stand on a contentious issue with an election coming up.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

do all agree that user Demiurge1000 is "scum", "sleaze boy" and "pathetic, anonymous worm"?

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.

---

[9] If not, why the user who attacked Demiurge1000 is not blocked yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.248.236 (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Considering this, the above, and virtually every other post at any of these noticeboards, perhaps it is time to have a serious discussion about making WP:NPA a zero-tolerance issue, exempt from the preventative not punitive mandate. (To a logical extent, no blocks for issues 3 weeks old) Ryan Vesey 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could adopt a rule that if someone is found to have made public attacks or incivil comments, they have to adopt the use of parliamentary language for a specified period of time, and if they fail to adhere to that standard, they get a 1 week block. Just offering an idea. -- Avanu (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not all, but I'm sure some do? :)

Insults like "sleaze boy" are something I've never ever seen or heard outside of The A-Team. Thus it is very hard for me to take such an insult seriously, or be offended by it.

It may offend others; it may contribute to lowering the tone of the discussion in question, and of Jimbo's talk page in general. But, the discussion wasn't exactly achieving a stellar level of constructiveness (some might think the entire thread served no purpose right from its start), and indeed Jimbo's talk page does see such threads quite often.

Another thing that makes it hard to take such insults seriously is that I predicted that the editor concerned would start calling me names, and he duly did so. His inability to answer the questions that I put to him, meant his collapse into ad hominem was pretty much inevitable. Hence I think the name-calling, pathetic though it was, was a result of frustration on the part of that editor, and probably not a matter for immediate action if it hasn't been an ongoing pattern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sleaze boy suggested a named person was interested in slitting people's throats because someone else made a highly inappropriate comment at a website the named person frequents. I called sleaze boy on it. Sleaze boy then suggested I (also a named person) was interested in slitting people's throats because I also post on the website that the inappropriate comment was made. "Demiurge1000" (aka "sleaze-boy," I'm trying to be kind) has accused me of being a would be murderer based on the fact that I use the internet. And now this pathetic worm wants me "blocked" for refusing to treat that as acceptable. Have fun sorting the ethics of this out. Let's start by knowing his full name. That seems like a fair starting point. Dan Murphy (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that this thread was not started by Demiurge1000. I see no evidence that he was calling for you to be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was started by some anon IP. And Demiurge held off for awhile with calling for a block, and only came back a bit later with the whole faux-sorrow routine of "I wasn't going to ask for a block but now I unfortunetly see it's part of a pattern so it pains me, it really really pains me, to ask for a block". He's been around, but so have I and I have seen this kind of back handed hypocritical "I'm gonna pretend it really hurts me to do it" block shopping too often too count. Volunteer Marek  01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never suggested a "named person" was interested in slitting people's throats, nor have I suggested that you were likely to do so either. Nor have I suggested that you should have been blocked for your puerile comments that were obviously made in frustration - in fact I suggested the opposite (read my comment above a little more carefully).

However, now that I look more closely, I see that you're also busy accusing other editors of being liars, today, and that you follow up your ridiculous behaviour with more of the same in this thread, and that you also have a block log for similar behaviour in the past. So yes, there does indeed seem to be an ongoing pattern here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, your comments were, let's say "purposefully inaccurate", "intentionally untrue", "not accidentally false", "deliberately misleading", "calculatedly erroneous". You basically implied that someone made a nasty threat when such a person did no such thing. When Dan called you on it, you began insinuating similar odious things about him.

I dunno. Maybe that's not "sleazy". Maybe it's not a "lie". But one thing it clearly is is a very passive aggressive way of pissing others off and provoking them, seemingly on purpose. And then trying to weasel out a sanction out of that successful provocation in a venue like this. Volunteer Marek  01:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I "basically implied" no such thing. If you're going to accuse me of lying (as Bali ultimate, now signing as "Dan Murphy", seems delighted to do to other editors right now), then you're going to have to back that up. Further, as for "trying to weasel out a sanction out of that", I didn't start this thread; and my first reaction to this thread (before seeing Bali ultimate's similar behaviour today towards other editors, and his block log for the same behaviour in the past), was to suggest that a block was not necessary. Trying to twist things to pretend otherwise, does you little credit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some guy emailed me to point out that the "sleaze boy" and "anonymous coward" taunts towards me, and the calling another editor a liar (diff above), are all part of a pattern of similar stuff by Bali ultimate over the last few days, including "You're just another anonymous shit-heel using Wikipedia (since it ranks high in google searches) to spread hate.". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You want me to back it up? Sure no problem. You said: "The Saruman comparison might be a little over-dramatic, but then again, "Peter Damian" and friends are prone to being excessively dramatic themselves. "It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats" isn't the sort of thing I've ever seen anyone in authority on Wikipedia get away with saying. The throats in question are those of certain Wikipedia editors."

Now, of course you damn well knew when you wrote that "Peter Damian" did not write the sentence you included right after mentioning him. Sure, you didn't explicitly state "Peter Damian said that he wanted to slit people's throats" - it'd be too easy to disprove that - but the way you structured your claim, first by mentioning Peter Damian, then by stating he is "excessively dramatic" and THEN quoting a statement he did NOT make, very clearly insinuates that the person you are discussing made that sentence. Which he did not.

Like I said, yes, it wasn't a 100% lie. Those are easy to disprove. But it was a ... "deliberate inaccuracy".

Maybe this kind of behavior isn't "sleazy". Maybe it isn't a "lie". But it sure as hey isn't decent. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are not editing under your real name, which means that "You're just another anonymous shit-heel" and "anonymous worm" was said about you too. Peter Damian used socks to edit Wikipedia, which means that " You're also probably a "sock-puppet" though I don't give a shit about that kind of stuff (though I have no respect for the asshats that do it to avoid scrutiny)" was said about him too. And now this edit summary: "run along sleaze and accuse some other victim of being a murderer behind your veil of "anonymity"". Dan Murphy is an enormous net negative to the project.

• This is exactly why I recently removed Jimbo's talk page from my watchlist and stopped commenting on anything there. And don't see this thread going anywhere either. It's Saturday night, shut off the computer, go have a drink, and forget about it. That's what I will be doing right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why is an obviously-logged-out and/or blocked user being allowed to troll WP:AN? There is nothing productive coming from this IP at all. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• And, yes, Beeblebrox and Tarc, according to Dan Murphy you are "anonymous shit-heels" and "anonymous worms" too.

• I do not agree that Demiurge1000 is a "scum", "sleaze boy" nor a "pathetic, anonymous worm". Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  As we all did. Thread should be closed and Murphy should be indeffed, along with any sockpuppets. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 09:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Other personal attacks by Dan Murphy

See here, here, here. It really doesn't matter who he's saying such things to, active editor, blocked editor, sockpuppet, ect. It's all inappropriate. Silverseren^C 05:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Gimme a break. Volunteer Marek  14:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Where do I drop off these cats?

Wrong venue. The place to go would be here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the approach that we see sometimes to problem solving here, I thought it might help to drop off a herd of cats for some of the contributors to watch. Alternatively, you could focus on solutions that are *fair*, and working on processes that help focus the debate rather than drag it off on tangents. Ryan proposed a zero-tolerance policy for personal attacks (or perhaps gross incivility as well). Comments? -- Avanu (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Your cats appear to have not only run off, but to have stolen your signature. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) More to the point, as we've seen above and many times before, what is one person's "gross incivility" is another person's "mild insult", and what is one person's "personal attack" is another person's "reasonable criticism". Until you tightly define anything, you can't hope to succeed. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Support. Until then, I won't give a fuck. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) You have insulted my ancestors and my Shao-Lin temple! I will not rest until I am revenged!!! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Black Kite, how about a clear cut list of zero tolerance phrases, like "Fuck you", "You're an asshole", and "Belgium"? -- Avanu (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Karaims

We need a new Admin over at Karaims an endangered Tatar ethnic group associated with the 18th century Unitarian movements of Eastern Europe but often confused with Karaite Jews due to the general trend among Unitarian groups (e.g. the related Molokans and Subbotniks etc.) with non-conventional Islamic origins in Eastern Europe to convert to Judaism. The third admin has now quit without adjudicating on a request to return the article to its original and less exclusive name (although he did try to stop users from re-factoring each others talk page comments by archiving the origins of the dispute). I have tried more than once to ask us to come together, but there are a few religious fanatics who are a bit hell-bent on deleting appropriately sourced facts from this ethnicity page which do not fit with their own fundamentalist POV pushing. Be warned that you will see a lot of division, a lot of ignorance, a lot of sock-puppetry and tag-team work e.g. to make sure the 3RR is not broken by one etc., avoiding dialogue and discussion, disregard for attempts to placate, a lot of ad-hominem and strawman attacks, and moreover the requested move although appropriate is a license nightmare due to copy and pasting instead of editors using the move function. This dispute has been on and off since a move back in 2004 by a user who has since changed his mind about what he did. The recent conflicts have been building up since August. Over 20 nice people have left this discussion over the years, most of them recently. If you have the skills for complex Sysop stuff, are interested in endangered Ethnic groups, unconventional Islamic sects in Eastern Europe, NPOV and have a lot of patience and nerve as well as time on your hands then please do step in to arbitrate. Kaz 07:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I,am the admin who just walked away from this unholy mess in disgust. What these guys need is apparently a babysitter, not an admin. They can't play nice with the talk page. What is needed is not another admin but some formal WP:DR to put an end to all the foolishness there. I have asked for an uninvolved closer for the move request at WP:ANRFC, but that may take some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe unblock request

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

It's quite clear that the community is not up to unblocking this editor at this time. The community points to not acknowledging the reason for his block and a few other things as the reason for decline. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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

This user's request remains unanswered for quite a time, which is understandable - in such situation an unblock should be made per consensus, so no admin is comfortable about reviewing singlehandedly. Therefore I'm starting a discussion here. Note: I have no opinion regarding this unblock request myself. Max Semenik (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin here, and this appeal slipped through my radar (though Foxj (talk · contribs) did consult me about re-enabling talk page access so that the editor could ask to be unblocked). Thanks very much to Max for following up on this. I think that we need assurances from the editor that they'll edit productively, and have posted some questions on their talk page in regards to this; his or her editing prior to the block was highly disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked at this a couple of times, but I didn't feel up to tackling it. I have to say I see a very tendentious approach to editing there, and I'm not entirely convinced that there's a solid commitment to respecting consensus and to following a much more collegial approach. It's good to see an agreement to stop the personal attacks, and good to see an agreement to follow procedures better in the previous unblock request - but it does concern me that in each case it took so long and so much hammering by others to get that far. And edit-warring so fiercely at DRN, of all places, showed staggeringly bad judgment - can we be confident that a lack of such judgment can and has been improved? OK, that's my fears, but I think I could cautiously support an unblock with a 1RR restriction, and an understanding that any repeat of the same behavior will lead straight back to a fresh block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (Withdrawn - see below) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I think that a commitment to stay away from the Sikorsky S-76 article is also needed given that this was the crux of the problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think we should require a voluntary topic ban from that article too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Require a voluntary topic ban? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, that he agrees not to edit it - whatever you call it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Agreement under pressure isn't real agreement; we can impose a topic ban, of course, but we mustn't call it voluntary. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Yep, sorry, I really just meant "by agreement" - as opposed to a community !vote topic ban -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• I've actually been fairly impressed by the patience TTT has shown lately. He's been waiting for someone to handle his unblock requests (on UTRS and on-wiki) for an annoyingly long time, but he's managed to not fly off the handle about it (I've spoken to him/seen him spoken to about it on IRC about it a few times, and while it's clear he's frustrated, he's always asked about it very politely, etc). That strikes me as a good sign that he's perhaps turned a corner as far as impulsivity. If TTT is willing to commit to some stricter behavioral guidelines (perhaps 1RR, as Boing suggests, or a topic ban?), I'm ok with giving him another chance here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Based on the replies TTT has offered to this thread, it appears I was wrong about his progressing away from the issues that caused the block.Oppose unblock at this time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has asked that an editor cross-post the following message from his or her talk page. I'll comment at the end of it: Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"I have to say I see a very tendentious approach to editing there, and I'm not entirely convinced that there's a solid commitment to respecting consensus and to following a much more collegial approach. It's good to see an agreement to stop the personal attacks, and good to see an agreement to follow procedures better in the previous unblock request - but it does concern me that in each case it took so long and so much hammering by others to get that far. And edit-warring so fiercely at DRN, of all places, showed staggeringly bad judgment - can we be confident that a lack of such judgment can and has been improved? OK, that's my fears, but I think I could cautiously support an unblock with a 1RR restriction, and an understanding that any repeat of the same behavior will lead straight back to a fresh block." Boing! said Zebedee

The tendentious editing page describes tendentious editing as biased or a non NPOV. A reliable source stated that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. I argued that as this was supported by consensus and there is no source that I know of, or that has since been brought to light that contradicts this. How was that not neutral?

As for the consensus, see above. There seem to be many misapprehensions about wikipedia policy on consensus. It's not a show of hands the way many people believe. Many people involved in this dispute believed that there was one right side, and one wrong side, and that was probably the driving force behind the unbelievable OR that was used to try to justify the removal of properly referenced edits. That is not what consensus on wikipedia is.

Let's say there were properly referenced dissent to the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. A proper consensus would be to present both ideas, and provide the appropriate references for each.

As for the collegial approach, I was routinely threatened, and at one point I was told that if I wanted to have an opinion I should create a subreddit on reddit where I could be the mod and ban anyone I wanted indefinitely that disagreed with me. I admit I responded to that editor in kind and told them they were condescending. Other than that I was fairly collegial, and I would ask that you provide references to this behavior you call non-collegial.

The entire unblock system is rather backwards. It first requires a mea culpa before you have a chance to plead your innocence. While that basically gives admins carte blanch, it puts people who have been blocked at an obvious disadvantage.

"it took so long and so much hammering by others". I offered the restrictions on my behavior on july 30. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Also could you tell me exactly how I was "fierce" in my edits to the DRN? I've been told that Guy Macon has acknowledged that he was involved in the dispute (has anyone told Nick-D?). He unilaterally closed the dispute on the DRN that he was involved in before it had been opened or been commented on by any neutral third party. I restored the dispute to the DRN, which was then reverted by Steven Zhang. I discussed it collegially with Steven Zhang, and Steven Zhang made noises about how an RFC might work, and that there are other avenues of dispute resolution then quickly closed the discussion without any definitive response. Seeing no harm in a new dispute being listed on the DRN I again restored it when Guy Macon started his reverts without any discussion or participation.

What did I do that was fierce?

What did I do that was so unique in it's poor judgement? Did I revert repeatedly without discussion?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm interpreting this as a rejection of the notion of avoiding the S-76 helicopter article, and tends to imply that if unblocked TTT would continue this dispute. I note that the crux of the issue was that he or she didn't provide sources to support the material they wanted to add to the article, despite requests that they do so. TTT has also resumed their attacks on Guy in the final paragraph - they seem to not be able to acce[t that the closure of the DRN thread was an entirely routine and sensible act. As such, I strongly oppose unblocking this editor at present as it appears that they would quickly resume their disruptive behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, what I now see (based on his own post) is a lack of understanding that his behaviour was inappropriate, as would be required by WP:GAB. Sorry - no thanks. Not that I want you to beg for forgiveness, but at least understand that your behaviour cannot recur. Let's see WP:OFFER - including positive editing on another project, minimum 6 months of great, non-problematic editing, then a return with a parole dangerouspanda 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• After that reply, continuing the content dispute that started all this, and again not dropping the DRN thing, I have to withdraw my support for unblock at this time - I'd suggest some time away, as per WP:OFFER -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has also asked that the following be posted here. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And you responded. What personal attacks did I make against Guy Macon and where? The topic was discussed at great length over weeks. Can you point out any point where the question was that I couldn't source the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70? I remember people saying that the 20,000 RPM turbines were reduced to 200RPM in a single transmission stage, that people brought up statements that the S-76 employs a planetary transmission, which didn't contradict the original statement, and several other opinions were aired against the referenced statement, but where was the question raised that I did not support my statement? It was really quite an involved, long, drawn out dispute, so I'm sure it played a massive massive role but I can't find it looking back now.

What makes you think I would edit disruptively?

Again, please someone post this in the discussion.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to dangerouspanda, I understand that editors can't insult one another, and that I shouldn't have reverted on the DRN. I don't see what citing GAB has to do with anything. What did I say that makes you think that I would repeat the things that I was blocked for?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, and all the possible arguments you could be making but didn't because I suppose you didn't feel the need to, it occurred to me that you could think that I really was editing tendentiously, that's why I was blocked for edit warring for a week in july, and that that's why... well, that's one of the arguments you decided not to make. I suppose you didn't make the argument that I was subject to a one week block in july because I reverted edits restoring a new dispute to the drn about an article where you didn't make the argument that I could be seen to have been repeating the same argument without convincing people.

There are times when no argument you can make will convince other people. Did I consider that my argument could be flawed? Yes. Did I blindly refute other parties that contradicted my edits? No. At each point when another editor brought OR to the table trying to debunk the claim made by the reference I didn't ignore their dissent. That's why I know that modern technology does not have a practical single stage transmission that reduces a 3,000shp 20,000 RPM input to a 200RPM output, and why I know that early sikorsky transmissions had two planetary stages. The simpler transmission of the S-70 probably reduced the number of planetary stages from 2 to 1. I made an honest effort to make the best argument that I could, but neither side would compromise which is why I was pursuing the dispute resolution process.

Is the threat you feel but didn't voice that I could pursue dispute resolution through probably RFC as DRN seems to have given up?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the above, oppose an unblock. Still a lot of confrontational tendencies. Max Semenik (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Max and in opposing any unblock of TTT until he owns up to his own wrongdoing and apologise to the community for it with a further assurance from TTT that this sort of unacceptable behaviour will not happen again in future. Also, TTT's way of small talk got me uneasy all over again, are Giant pandas really being deemed as dangerous or endangered? Which is which? And seeing that he has not dropped the same battleground mentality that had gotten him to where he is in the very first place, I just wish to state that I have no confidence whatsoever even if a 1RR was imposed, some people are just not capable (or is it a competency issue?) of handling such restrictions. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has also asked that the following message be posted here: Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The 1 week block that expired august 4th was not for disruptive editing on the s-76 page. It was for restoring a dispute on the DRN. Many of the people opposing my unblock request seem to be doing it both because I feel that there are still problems with the S-76 article.

First, last I checked the article about a month ago, I had two problems with it. One, is that the use of the term "engineering technologies" is unencyclopedic weasel wording. Second, it doesn't reflect the content of the references referenced in the article.

Now. It's my understanding that IF someone had a problem with my editing on that article it would be that I was either editing the article in a disruptive way, or that I was proceeding in the dispute resolution process in a disruptive way.

My intention is to constructively pursue the dispute resolution process. What problem is there with that? On July 30 I volunteered reasonable restrictions that would prevent my past errors.

What concerns do people have about me pursuing the dispute resolution process on the S-76 article? Are you concerned that I would make personal attacks? Are you concerned that I would edit war? Are you concerned that I would be otherwise disruptive? What is the concern?

What I don't understand is that people seem to have a problem that my opinion about the fact hasn't changed because so far nobody has made a compelling argument to bring that fact into question, but people seem to be bothered that I still hold that opinion. I suppose the concern is that I still intend to advocate that opinion on wikipedia, but really, what problem do you have with me saying that I would submit the article for RFC? How is that disruptive?TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has asked for another extended comment to be posted here. To avoid this thread becoming too long, I will link to it instead: User talk:TeeTylerToe#Further request to post comments to WP:AN thread. JohnCD (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having read through the whole saga, oppose unblock and suggest WP:STANDARD OFFER. JohnCD (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus to not unblock. Can someone please decline the request on TTT's talk page? Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

RfC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 to start on 1 October

Just to let everyone know that the (perennial) RfC for the 2012 ArbCom Elections is planned to start on 1 October, lasting for 30 days. While many things have already been decided in the past, other issues still need to be discussed and consensus re-established, while there are also a couple of other new issues that came up from last year's election that need to be addressed to ensure a smooth and fair election.

The RfC will be at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 (yes, as of this posting, it is a redlink, but it will shortly not be). Regards, --MuZemike 19:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The RFC is now live. Monty₈₄₅ 03:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

For the future

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.

---

Can we say there is solid and unequivocal consensus from the Admin corps that any admin who uses the email feature in future to send unprofessional *and* uncivil commentary will have their admin bit revoked, or at least have a block/ban of a certain length? Or shall we continue in a gray area on this? -- Avanu (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment I'm a bit on the fence with regards to this proposal. Proposal 1 is a pretty heavy punishment which would need Arbcom to step in and really needs to be indicative of a sustained pattern of abuse. 2 and 3 aren't really all that different. Neither of these are really tenable because some will just bring up the whole "preventative vs punitive" thing and these 2 are definitely punitive and would probably cos wheel warring or at the very least days of bitter drama on AN or ANI where the blockee gets blocked/unblocked a few times and everyone wanders off with a lot of time wasted and nothing achieved. Don't get me wrong, personally I feel that the civility policy is interpreted in so many ways that it's mostly a headfuck but it should be something that needs to be applied even more strongly than it is now. The only consensus that you'll see in this RFC is the lack of one. Blackmane (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal has been precipitated by a very recent, rare, event. I don't think we need to introduce either a fixed penalty system or a 'do nothing' solution. I feel any future occurrences can be adequately examined and handled on a case by case basis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  What makes you so confident that it was a "very rare event"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone's convinced that there is an epidemic of admins emailing insults to "peasants" like us. You'd need real evidence to back up such a theory, not just the usual wikianarchist rhetoric. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Impossible. It's very easy for me to send an e-mail to someone that says "I like Fruit Loops". The receiver could forward the e-mail to someone and make the original say "I think you're a Fruit. I should Loop a noose around your neck". We cannot penalize something that is so unsecured that it can be modified. dangerouspanda 12:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm in agreement with Kudpung on this; this is very much an edge case. Our policy pages and help documentation are already so full of them as to be useless. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, such cases should be handled depending on the circumstances without any standardised sanctions. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If Kudpung and Ironholds agree on something, I'm pretty sure it must be the right answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) @De728631: The problem is, such cases aren't "handled". If it is someone you guys dislike, you throw the book at them. If it is someone you like, there are many excuses offered and rationales proffered. Yet many admins issue sanctions at the drop of a hat. What we need is consistency and professionalism. In the case that spawned this proposal, nothing was done, because the person apologized, and because another admin sidetracked the discussion with sanctions against the complaintant. This is a systemic problem, and part of fixing it is coming up with standards that you do not violate. Perhaps an admin oath may be needed. Perhaps the bright line on certain behaviors. But as long as it is perpetually gray, you will have this problem. -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked too much into the massive wall of text of the original discussion but an apology seems fine to me, and closing the thing was probably a good idea to prevent any further heating up of arguments. Just as we don't block for punitive reasons once an editor admits they've been wrong, we might not always throw the full book at administrators who made a mistake and apologise afterwards. Likewise, if you feel that certain admins are biased when it comes to handling reports then you should address that individually. Consistency by always following any rule and guideline in the strict sense of the letter is not helpful because that would turn Wikipedia into the bureaucracy we all want to avoid. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Where do we draw the line? Suppose I use the on Wikipedia interface to email an admin some criticism, this by function reveals my email. If the admin writes back a terribly uncivil response, are we saying that sanction would occur if the admin used the in interface email this user function, but would not occur if they used the reply function in their email client, and thereby bypassed Wikipedia entirely? That seems horribly arbitrary, yet to include the latter case would be equally problematic, as when do you draw the line and admit it is off wiki conduct that cannot be dealt with here? Monty₈₄₅ 15:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What I'm wondering about is the verifiability of such problematic emails. I would think that the Wikipedia interface does log what has been sent, so who is actually able to check that? De728631 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any record of the actual content of WP emails. They are considered private, that is kind of the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem here. If you can't track it down how are you going to prove abuse? Anyone can claim having been insulted via the automated email tool and the accused parties can always deny their involvement. As long as judgement is based on mere claims we shouldn't consider creating any hypothetical set of general sanctions. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So we compound the felony by accusing the recipient of emails such as the one that sparked this discussion of lying and tampering with the evidence? Nice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In the particular case that sparked all this hysteria we know exactly what happened because the person who sent the email has completely owned up to it. Absent evidence of a more widespread issue with verbal abuse in emails I don't see any point to continuing to discuss it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To the extent that every admin who has commented is against this proposal, I agree with all of them, and I'm not going to vote on the "pick one" stuff below. This topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC - PICK ONE:

• Proposal #1 - You lose adminship.

• Proposal #2 - You get a civility block for 3 days.

• Proposal #3 - You get a civility ban for 1 week, which requires careful and professional interaction for that period of time.

• Proposal #4 - Nothing at all/Trout/Slap on wrist.

• Um, we don't do RFCs right on this page generally. Not o mention that this is poorly formatted, does not use the actual RFC tag and so won't be listed with other policy RFCs, the whole idea is pretty dumb and obviously not supported, etc, etc. If you, whoever you are that posted this, insist on having this discussion please review WP:RFC and create a subpage somewhere for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• It was posted by Avanu. While we don't do RFCs here generally, we're also not a bureaucracy. Nobody Ent 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, like this is really going to work out really well, like every other attempt to do something like this has. The civility police need to calm the fuck down. Ph noes, I saided a bad word! Please, pepper my talk page with bullshit warnings about civility. Oh noes I did it again! Where's the swear jar, I'll go get a nickel... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to come up with the perfect solution here. Beeblebrox, if you're here to help, then by all means, join the party. But if you're here to throw a fit or just say it's dumb, I'm sure you can find a more receptive audience. Blackmane, Kudpung, Malleus, EatsShootsAndLeaves, De728631, Monty845, and even you at first, were able to contribute without swearing and without resorting to incivil comments. If you have a better idea than my proposal, that would be great. But staying in a gray area where you can say "Fuck off asshole; I'm really sorry" seems like a bad place, especially for those we trust with admin rights. I'm not looking for MY idea to win, I'm looking for some positive idea from anyone who has one. -- Avanu (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one throwing a fit. I think that might be the user who is refactoring other users comments to this discussion and edit warring with people over the content of their own goddamn talk page. And, shockingly, you used the s word! [10] I assume you think you should be blocked now... Anyhoo, the point is that it is basically impossible to define what is and is not civil and what sanctions there should be when the line is crossed. That is why we deal with these things on a case by case basis. Not an optimal solution but way better than enforcing civility with punisment, which is really what this proposal would do. ArbCom took a swing at this and didn't really manage to resolve anything, I seriously doubt this half-baked proposal will succeed where they failed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anywhere in this proposal or in all of Wikipedia that we adopt a Pollyanna-ish approach to bad words. If you will note in the opening I said "unprofessional and uncivil commentary (in email)". I did not say this means you can't say expletives as a rule. The context and professionalism matters. So again, either come here with a positive contribution or find something else to derail. -- Avanu (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a news flash for you: You don't get to dictate who particpates in a discussion. You were told that rathwr clearly by the community just yesterday, right here on this page. This newest dumb idea is not a positive contribution as you make it out to be, it is a poorly thought out disaster in the making and in case you hadn't noticed literally nobody is actually picking one of your four options, and calls for this entire idiotic thread to be closed are now becoming apparent. Since this is such a bad idea I don't actually need to argue against it for it to fail but I will not be dictated to by you or anyone else regarding which community discussion participate in. If you can't handle your proposals being strongly rejected by the community don't propose them in the first place. Or maybe put more than five seconds of thought into them instead of posting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this from a prior closing statement: Nobody Ent 19:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Like many threads in AN and AN/I, this one started off well. But until the crowd acknowledges a better approach is needed, AN and AN/I are not useful for thoughtful and professional debate. Closing. Thanks to those who approached the problem with a serious attitude. -- Avanu (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Enough, already. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"until the crowd acknowledges a better approach is needed - Yes, that's right, until there is a consensus, you won't have a consensus. Regarding User:Avanu: 6,374 edits, Talk: 30.29%, User talk: 24.92%, Wikipedia 24.03%, Articles: 13.4%. It's still unclear what the purpose of this editor is -- it certainly isn't improving the encycylopedia by editing articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC) If it is unclear to you, please take ownership of your comment and specify that this relates to you. My vision is not blurred by the editing stats which cause your concern. And a mere cursory review shows numerous constructive examples; predominately. A clear net positive, just like you, and I'd like to believe me as well. Please reconsider the difficulty required to ascertain these truths. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Who the heck did you think I meant it was unclear to, Sarah J. Portabello of Perth Amboy, New Jersey? When someone has a mere 6,000+ edits, and 1,824 are to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk, and only 818 are to articles, the conclusion I draw is that the person in here for some kind of interpersonal interactions, and is not particularly interested in working on the encyclopedia. And when they continue to come up with unworkable non-starter ideas (this one is the third in the past few weeks), I can't help but think "dead weight" - and I'll continue to think that until I see a different balance of contributions from this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC) It just felt as if you were speaking for the whole community, or summarizing a consensus. I only knew for sure that you were not speaking for me. I'll leave the whole editor purpose evaluation in your capable hands. AGF works best for me, so I'll likely just keep with that standard. Cheers - 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, we had this debate before I believe. You focus on what I call housekeeping edits. You can sit there and act like you are better because you can add a tag or correct a sentence 4 times before you get it right, or you can acknowledge that the quality of my edits is generally superior to yours. I don't take the easy edits, and I don't sit here and proofread articles all day. I simply don't have the mental and physical energy to work all day and then come here and deal with minutiae like that. For what its worth, basing your argument on such things is really not kosher. It's called an ad hominem attack. The only thing making these ideas "unworkable non-starter ideas" is the fact that too many other people aren't concerned with fixing problems. You stand on the sideline as unfair outcomes play out and ridicule people like myself who actually would like to see them put to rest. You can think "dead weight" all you like, but when I look at what you do for the substance of the encyclopedia, I can't say you're really all that worthwhile either. Now, that we've engaged in a petty game of namecalling and ad hominem, do you suppose in the future you could shut your mouth, and just focus on positive solutions? I promise to refrain from engaging in a real analysis of your sorry contribution history if you get off the high horse that says automatically that people with shitty attitudes and lots of edits get to dictate whether something is handled fairly. Take care. -- Avanu (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Student exchange program

Okay, somehow no one noticed that Student exchange program was hijacked and re-written as a POV-pushing article back in April, and moved to the title ‪Cultural Exchange Programs as Public Diplomacy‬. I've restored the content back to pre-hijack status, and need the title moved back. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How about a rotation of admins on AN and AN/I ?

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.

---

Looking at this, it seems that part of the problem with such threads as the one Ed17 just closed is the free-for-all nature. Would it help to take any thread that is seeming to go out of control and move it from the general free-for-all into a pre-designated system where admins (and editors) are restricted from participating unless they meet a certain criteria? You could do it by the day of the month the thread started, along with the letters in the username of the person. Something that would ensure a degree of randomness and fairness, and would limit the number of people who are chiming in. Opinions are like apples.... or was that another word? :) But honestly, for threads that tend to spiral out of control, limiting the number of people seems like it might help things come to a more healthy resolution. -- Avanu (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Totally-involved admins may continue to comment, but it's a sad truth that admins will never be the same as non-admins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unenforceable and not practical, and against the volunteer spirit of Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - no offence intended but has 1 April come early? I do not get this at all. @Jasper, I especially do not understand your "admins/non-admins" comment for this wrt ANI, which is even less an "admin only" noticeboard than here. But I am tired and off to bed. Maybe I'm missing the bleeding obvious, - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue is not that anyone can speak up, it's that some people say and do things that unnecessarily raise the drama level. It's not a good idea to exclude most people because a few people don't moderate themselves or their actions particularly well. I haven't seen a good solution to these kinds of messes yet, but it's worth stressing that this specifically isn't it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A small team of people, staying focused, seems more likely to come to a conclusion more quickly. In the thread above, I can't tell whether it was important for the admin to have a change of heart, or whether the collective will was sidetracked by Malleus getting blocked. What is the lesson learned from the overall thread above? In fact, it was closed because it got derailed by side issues. I don't see how submitting something to a committee is contrary to the 'volunteer spirit' or 'discriminatory', but I suppose anything goes here. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because, in the context of civility & respect for fellow editors, WP doesn't have a collective will. Nobody Ent 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified support I'd be totally willing to be part of this as soon as I know how much it pays. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't even really feel like making up a reason. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as impractical and discriminatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose per Beyond My Ken. AutomaticStrikeout 03:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Note

I closed it before Ed17, for the record. Just that Black Kite disagreed. See my talk page for more. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 09:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I unstruck my comment and one that cited it. Yes it was flippant, meant to reflect the absurdity of the proposal itself. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing absurd about asking for the Admin corps and Wikipedia to seek better processes to handle disputes and behavior problems. The idea of sending something to a committee is nothing new, and it is already employed by several areas in Wikipedia when we desire a very clear understanding of the issues. -- Avanu (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is something rather absurd about an editor who has contributed so little to the encyclopedia as you have continuing to be concerned about larger matters of policy and behavior. Earn some credibility with your edits before you try to reform the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I see little incentive to "earn" some degree of admiration in the eyes of someone who has such little respect for others. I deal with a lot of people on a daily basis, some are brilliant, and some are not, and I never demand that they earn the right from me to be treated with dignity. Narrow minded and selfish people think it makes them better to be able to lord their achievements over others. I'll honor contributions, and I'll thank anyone for what they do, but I'm not giving you or anyone else a pass to act like an ass because you think you have earned the right to be shitty to others. We're not working in a wartime situation and you are no Patton. You're a guy who knows how to add tags and fix small problems, and from what I can tell, that is the extent of what you do. I'm tired of the stupidness and selfishness and the general fuck-the-little-guy attitude. But some of you seem to get your rocks off on that. I would have thought humanity could have come a little further, but I guess not. -- Avanu (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I have earned the right to be shitty to anyone, it's that you have earned the right for others to disdain your ideas about reforming Wikipedia -- which are always rejected by the community -- because (1) they're silly, and (2) your contributions to the project are minimal. Concentrate on editing articles for a while, show that you're actually interested in building an encyclopedia, then you can come back here and indulge your taste for social engineering and expect your ideas (if they're valuable) to be given attention. In the meantime, you're basically just a freerider. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

More admins are needed to address pending unblock requests. There are currently 20 requests, some of which have been waiting for several days. --auburnpilot talk 00:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hidden pictures!

Hi sysops. I dont know why I cant show 2 pictures ([11] and [12]) of my uploads in Afghanistan–Iran relations. can you help me?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the pictures just fine (Afghanistan–Iran relations#Gallery). But you should probably put the pictures on Commons: so other wikis can use them. Also this type of question should generally go on WP:HELPDESK rather than the administrator board. Do you really have an EOS-5D Mark II that you took these pictures with? How do you like it? 67.117.130.72 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No. there is fivr pictures in the article. but two of them havnt shown. these are my problem.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You were missing a pipe for each image, so it was only adding every other image. It was |Filename|Alt=Alt text and needed to be |Filename|Alt=Alt text|Caption even if the caption is blank. Should be fixed now. For future reference, WP:HELPDESK should be your first stop for this sort of question, as this noticeboard is more directed at administrative issues rather then normal problems editing. Monty₈₄₅ 20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about those images. They look like they were taken by an official photographer, no one else would have that kind of access, but if the uploader is an official photographer for the event, he might not own the photos, his employer more than likely would have ownership of the images. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We should ask for a formal declaration of permission, which should include an explanation of why the access, which isn't likely for a random editor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page, I think it's unfortunately likely the user is not the copyright holder of those works. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrative backlogs (!)

We need some admins at WP:RPP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

UAA and RFU could use attention as well. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of backlogs, is there a tool to make clearing them faster by doing relatively redundant steps for you? I mean like, a tool that when you block an editor automatically appends the relevant or chosen template to their talk page? And other such things. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:EASYBLOCK allows me to block & add the template at one click. Useful for UAA and AIV. – Connormah (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE doesn't do the blocking for you but it has a block message menu that is easy to navigate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is another tool available to speed up the process - WP:RfA. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish it would help clear up the problem at WP:CP. :( Backlog there is at 50 days...so many that the TOC no longer works (it only functions up to 9/1) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think most of the stuff there does not need administrative intervention, but according to the info I found only administrators and clerks can deal with the affected articles. Is there any way to relax this constraint and to let all editors in good standing to clear off the copyright issues? May be this would solve the backlog problem?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In terms of practical work, the only thing that admins and clerks are mandatory for is removing {{copyvio}} templates from articles and frankly only because so often they are removed in defiance or ignorance of copyvio, and not because the issue has been addressed. At least, I have never quibbled with finding one of those removed for good reason. :) I chalk it up as a really good case of WP:IAR. {{copy-paste}} and {{close paraphrasing}} issues (which make up about 20% of the board, I'd guess) can be addressed by anybody, and anybody can do an article rewrite in the temp space. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to open up closing days to anyone, since it isn't uncommon to find people have mishandled them and that doesn't get caught without experienced review, but, frankly, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have articles blanked for two months because we don't have enough people to work on them, either. I wonder if it would be helpful to make clerkship a really, really low bar for participation. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

May be just to bundle it automatically with other flags like autopatrolled or rollback? Basically the only requirement is that the users understand the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Miszabot troubles

Miszabot I seems to think the next archive for Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece) is Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)//Archive 10. It isn't. I've moved the page to Archive 5 (the next in sequence), but this is the second time I've had to do this (previously for Archive 4). It'd be nice if someone would salt the //Archive 10 page and/or figure out what the bot's deal is. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like the counter in the bot template was just wrong. I tweaked it. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  03:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the user whose edit caused this problem. Graham87 06:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Gee, that's a bit much. Archiving gets messed up all the time -- I've fixed this page a couple times and I know other people have. They were making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 10:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with letting the user know they made a mistake, and would actually encourage it. How are they going to learn if nobody tells them? —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  13:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The tone could have been a little better - emphasizing the thanks for helping and throwing in the glitch as an aside, but in general, it makes sense to let people know. I know when I'm busy I have a bad habit of cutting to the chase, which can come across a little brusquely, so I need a reminder once in a while as well that these are volunteers trying to help, not paid employees.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed ... on re-reading my message, I realise that a simple "Thanks for setting up the archive" or similar at the start would have taken some of the sting out of the message. Sometimes I forget to do that. Thanks for reminding me and all of us. Graham87 14:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

fix article history

Could someone fix the article history of Miju language? The histories of the article and a redirect have been merged, so that moves appear to be blanking, etc. For example, these deletions[13][14] never happened, nor did these restorations.[15][16] The problem is (Deletion log) 23:49 restored page Miju language ‎(5 revisions restored).

Thanks — kwami (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting on it. Please, nobody else do anything until I leave a note saying that I'm finished or that I'm stuck and need help. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done. The article itself is at Miju language, and the history of the redirect is at Talk:Miju language/old history. Please look it over to see that I did what I should have; a consultation of the deletion log for Miju language will show you why I'm not confident that I did the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing another history merge. I've started a discussion on whether attribution in the redirect's history is required at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Creativity of page names. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have another request for a undoing a histmerge: Three-Lobed Burning Eye. The two articles are about one form of H. P. Lovecraft's Nyarlathotep and a magazine named after it. The monster article was AfD'd and redirected to the magazine. The history merge created nonsensical diffs (e.g., 1, 2) between revisions from the separate pages. I asked the admin to separate the monster revisions to Three-Lobed Burning Eye (monster), but he has not done so.

• 46 revisions total, 30 revisions related to disambiguation page and monster
• 26 revisions for disambiguation page and monster. The earlier revisions are a disambiguation page containing sections on the monster and the magazine, but they are all primarily about the monster.
• 13 for magazine
• 7 interleaved revisions, 4 monster (2,000 bytes and 48-byte redirect) and 3 magazine (>3,000 bytes)
  • 2 magazine: Jclemens merged a sentence, and I added attribution with a dummy edit. 48 revisions total. This diff should cover any later edits. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's how a histmerge actually works, Flatscan. I have yet to see you articulate any policy-based reason for undoing the histmerge, else I would have done it myself. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I linked to WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and WP:Merge and delete#History fixing in the body and edit summary of my opening comment to you. A troublesome case explains why overlapping histories should not be histmerged. A more complex case describes two topics in one history. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was that history-merged in the first place? The content of the pages is totally different, which means a histmerge only breaks the article history. The correct way to handle this would have been to move the redirect to a disambiguated title (say, Three-Lobed Burning Eye (creature)), to make way for the move of the magazine article to Three-Lobed Burning Eye. That would have left the histories of both pages intact while allowing the magazine article to have an undisambiguated title. Jafeluv (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the content was merged into one article, and there was no foreseeable need to maintain separate articles, per the AfD discussion. I merged everything relevant into one article, rather than maintaining separate redirects for content which would be merged into that article, and chose histmerge to maintain author attribution. Nothing in the history is "broken", just interleaved. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think we're supposed to merge histories of unrelated pages when doing text merges. The procedure is to note the merge in edit summaries and to apply {{R from merge}} to the remaining redirect as a notification that it shouldn't be deleted. There are also talk page templates {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} to indicate where the history can be found. History-merging unrelated pages makes the article history difficult to follow (you can't compare successive versions to see what changes have been made) and it's tedious to undo since you have to go revision by revision and figure out which page that revision is from. (Some of this is explained at WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel versions.) It's good that you're making sure author attribution is preserved, but in this case I think it should not have been done by history-merging the pages. Jafeluv (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For anyone unfamiliar, {{Copied}} is the preferred template, but it is more complex. User:Asfuller was the primary contributor to both articles, and the magazine article looked completely rewritten. There was no attribution dependency until Jclemens merged a sentence after my request here. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to fulfill this request? I've done part of the work by sorting the revisions into two sets. Jclemens has edited after his last response two days ago, but he has not replied since. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that Nyttend would do it, but he hasn't edited for a few days. I have asked Anthony Appleyard, the most active admin at WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, to take a look. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. I have left Three-lobed Burning Eye (creature) undeleted, as it contains the history of the text that was later split off into Three-Lobed Burning Eye (magazine). I have text-merged Three-lobed Burning Eye (creature) into The Haunter of the Dark. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, all the revisions look good. I tagged Three-lobed Burning Eye with a {{db-move}} to remove the "(magazine)" disambiguation and to match the official ([17], [18]) capitalization. WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles also prefers a lowercase "-lobed". I'll do another pass for the WP:Copying within Wikipedia details. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma

Moved from WP:ANI

 – Nobody Ent 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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 user Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to view Wikipedia primarily as a tool for advancing his anti-Muslim agenda, generally through the addition of laughably inappropriate sources (anti-Muslim blogger Fjordman as a reliable source?) (often restoring them after being reverted, claiming falsely that the removing user did not provide a reason). He has also been completely unresponsive to multiple users advising him to go through normal WP processes like RSN and not to edit war. I recommend a block or topic ban if possible, and close scrutiny of his edits (both past and ongoing) if not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on the subject of Islam and Muslims, broadly construed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• [edit conflict] You need to provide problematic diffs in order to have someone sanctioned. The "inappropriate" link is something that's clearly appropriate from a sourcing angle — WP:SELFPUB says that we may use organisations' websites as sources about their own statements, and the precedent from the discussions on the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent designation of several organisations as hate groups shows that consensus favors including this kind of comment from organisations that are fiercely biassed against article subjects. The Fjordman link simply shifts the blog citation from one place to another, again using the source as a reference for its creator's position. The Investigative Project on Terrorism section of the Steven Emerson article appears to indicate that parts of the US government have depended on it (unless I misunderstand something), so it's at least not laughably inappropriate. What else is there to which you object? Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • In the edit war link given above by Roscelese three editors reverted GPM, two of them admins. I've notified them of this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Nyttend, you're arguing sources. This is not about sources. This is about combative editing combined with ignoring DR. Had GPM utilized DR and RSN, we wouldn't be here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That's plainly not true; among other issues with your comment, the Fjordman cite was inserted by GPM himself, and there clearly is not consensus to make articles into soapboxes for the self-published views of patently unreliable sources. Seriously, you may disagree but it really is the least you can do not to post things that are obviously false in order to get your buddy off. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on the subject of Islam and Muslims, broadly construed. --John (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• oppose topic ban very strongly - GPM has done much good work in this area William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Like what? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  That may be, but if he edit wars, uses false edit summaries, and refuses to participate in DR or on RSN then he is a problem more than an asset. Can you persuade him to mend his ways? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How about you see what he has to say before you make your mind up? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what he did elsewhere, but he does have problems with recognising reliable sources (or maybe unreliable ones). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See the Jagged85 cleanup stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The way he inserted Fjodman puts Gun Powder Ma in the Noleander boat, or rather in its mirror image of some kind. If there is no consensus here for a ban, this definitely should go to ArbCom. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Aren't ban discussions supposed to be at WP:AN instead of here?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yep. Moved it.

• Oppose RFCU should be done first. Nobody Ent 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nobody Ent also I don't any proof that some discussion of the editor problems were discussed with him.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Other than the links I provided of editors discussing the problem with him and him blowing them off? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The links provided do not show edit warring, but they do show a great deal of incivility on the part of the person bringing the complaint, and very little discussion of content. The bit of text that seems to be causing the most trouble is "In 2009, the FBI broke off its contacts with CAIR, following rising concerns about the organization's ties with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas." Surely this is something that can be fact-checked and possibly even other sources found for it (doesn't Department of State maintain such lists?) instead of haranguing another editor, and telling them "stay out of this topic area", essentially defending CAIR. Roscelese has done the same thing at Secular Islam Summit, reinserting the CAIR-approved viewpoints, and removing anything critical of CAIR, as well as inserting untrue and unsourced biographical material about living persons, into the text over and over. There was also the same pattern of incivility. Some kind of dispute resolution was tried in April, but those editors were all driven away, and a new batch of editors was driven away as well. Most recently, Roscelese has removed the NPOV tag [19] and continues the slow edit war over inserting unsourced biographical material [20], and rejecting reliable sources, and promoting an invented synthesis [21] that basically accuses living persons of apostasy, which in CAIR's world, is punishable by death. Neotarf (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Or, to put it in a sentence, "I'm still sulking that no one agreed with my complete disregard of Wikipedia's sourcing policies on an unrelated article, so I'm going to try to sabotage Wikipedia process." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That is incivil and unsupportable. Neotarf (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Editors shouldn't be writing statements like "the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas" using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice, particularly an editor who has been around since 2006 and made over 15,000 edits. There is no excuse for it. It shows that they don't understand or care about the very basic mandatory rules of the project. Each time an editor makes an edit like this where a POV, no matter whether it is the FBI's or Hamas', is presented as an unattributed fact, someone has to fix it. If an editor makes a lot of edits like this that need fixing, it eventually becomes disruptive and something has to happen to stop it. I don't know the extent of Gun Powder Ma's problematic editing but this is a crystal clear example of an editor not complying with mandatory policy. Wikipedia seems to be incapable of dealing with editors who edit in a consistently biased way. Their presence makes writing an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be fun, into a sisyphean task. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Sean, the sentence could be worded better, true, but why not just make the attribution more clear instead of edit-warring to remove it completely? Look at the first sentence, taken straight from the organization's PR material: "The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) is America's largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy and promotes human rights." Human rights? REALLY? This is an organization that believes any Moslem that does not accept its Salafist doctrines is guilty of apostasy and should be killed. The piece made it look like 1) CAIR is even more wonderful than bunnies and kittens 2) CAIR represents all Moslems. It's a puff piece. The wording was restored with the edit summary "unexplained removal of contents". Surely this is the time for Roscelese to take it to the talk page, instead of just calling it "ridiculous" in the edit summary and reverting again. This is plain and simple BRD, Bold-Revert-Discuss, except that Roscelese skipped the discuss part and went straight for another revert.
        • I don't see bias as a special problem. Everyone has bias; no way to escape it. That's what RS is for. Otherwise you're just back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is basically the argument Roscelese keeps making here for why everyone else should stop editing.
        • Yes, it's discouraging try to edit with someone who writes insults and unfounded accusations into every line and edit summary, who reinserts WP:BLP material that has been carefully sifted out in dispute resolution, and who always seems to be surrounded by editors who are getting blocked and banned, whether they were involved or just innocent bystanders.
        • Neotarf (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
          • • I strongly recommend that you cut out the lies and personal attacks right now. You are not helping your case nor Gun Powder Ma's. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, I don't think Gun Powder Ma's case needs much help right now. The consensus is clearly opposed to the topic ban. AutomaticStrikeout 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Nothing is even more wonderful than bunnies and kittens other than perhaps more bunnies and kittens, and puppies I guess. Well, I didn't look at the context. Ignoring context and focusing intently on something that is shiny and catches my eye simplifies things enormously, but since you insist, GPM made a bold (B) but bad edit to the lead that violates a core policy NPOV and despite what WP:LEAD says about the lead being a summary. Roscelese reverted it (R). What should have happened then is the GPM should have done the D part of BRD and opened a talk page discussion. They didn't, GPM just put the content back, it was reverted again (it is a policy violation after all and Roscelese isn't under any obligation to clear up other people's mess) and that is how edit wars start, people not following BRD. Who doesn't follow BRD ? POV pushers and people who are tired of dealing with POV pushers. I haven't read through the CAIR article. My only interest in it is as an asset that attracts and can help spot a number of long term, repeat offender, topic banned, compulsively dishonest sockpuppeteers, who disrupt the WP:ARBPIA topic area. "Everyone has bias; no way to escape it."..sure there is, don't edit topics where you have a bias you can't control and topic ban editors who can't control their bias. For example, I think religions are ludicrous, I don't even believe in freedom of religion, so I stay away from those topics. The few edits I do make to religion related articles are usually to defend BLPs from intolerant assholes like me. It's not that difficult but some people seem to have a lot of trouble editing against their POV and those editors should be given some time and encouragement to improve and mercilessly crushed if they can't. A handful edits usually isn't enough evidence to topic ban someone and there are two sides to every story but it's very tedious to build a case to demonstrate long term POV pushing. It's easier to walk away, which I think is what a lot of people do. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Each of the edits is less than a week old; most are from the last day or so. None of the edits look bad; on first glance they should all stand (notable bloggers covering a topic can be cited). Admittedly, disputes can be tense and hard to deal with, but jumping straight to a topic ban is in poor taste. Clearly, a religious area is a difficult place with strongly-held opinions, but Wikipedia is not a 'politically-correct' zone. To have NPOV, we have to have both sides. II | (t - c) 02:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that I could support this report with examples from the past couple of days - that I didn't have to do any digging into this user's behavior to find ample evidence of complete disregard for WP:RS and behavioral policies in service of an agenda - should not be spun as a positive. How silly! (And no, NPOV is not about having "both sides" but about using reliable sources. We don't say "in one corner, the round-earth people with their scientific evidence, and in the other corner, the flat-earth people with their blog posts.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If someone has a Wikipedia page solely because of their work in the area, it's fair to suspect that they will fall under WP:SELFPUB. As far as comparing a comment on the word Islamophobia to a flat-earther, well, I think that speaks for itself as a self-damaging rhetorical strategy. It suggests you're really not being reasonable. II | (t - c) 15:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • No, that's not "fair to suspect" at all. Generally, when someone does "work" in an area, they are able to have their work published in reliable sources. If Fjordman were able to have his opinion published in a reliable source, rather than his personal blog, FrontPage Magazine, or other fringe venues, things might be different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• I've had some previous experience with Gun Powder Ma. He was very aggressive in trying to erase reliably-sourced claims for ancient China's economic strength and innovations. This included routine source misrepresentation (eg [22]), always in the direction of emphasizing the superiority of European culture over that of Asians. Therefore, I think it's plausible that his involvement in the "Islamophobia" topic area is not productive, but you'll need better diffs to support such a conclusion. Shrigley (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only 'edit war' evidence above is thin at best, and one-time edit warring typically results in a ban of 24hrs to a week, not a topic ban. Adding what some users consider poor sources is not in itself a cause for banning as long as the user is open to constructive criticism and challenges to their sources. As suggested above, an RFCU should be done before a topic ban, particularly since GPM is an established editor with a fairly long history of constructive edits. Dialectric (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  If GPM is "open to constructive criticism", he is not displaying that at Talk:Muslim_Mafia_(book)#Restoration_of_clearly_unreliable_sources. Indeed, he is inserting primary sources (letters tom congresspeople) hosted at an unreliable source (the so-called "Investigative Project") to synthesise a "Political reception" of a book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  This. If GPM had responded to constructive criticism with "Okay, help me figure out why these sources aren't good, and I'll see if I can find better sources that support the material I want to add," we wouldn't be here. Instead, he restored the material with blatantly false edit-summaries, edit warred, made personal attacks, and refused to pursue normal WP processes like RSN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I had similar concerns about editing to an agenda after coming across GPM's edits and approach to article-writing on pages such as La Convivencia - where they were trying to make the page 90% about debunking the concept, in a huge "Criticism" section, based mostly on one essay in the "flagship journal" published by this lot - and University of al-Karaouine, where they were pushing hard with sources that denied non-European medieval institutions could ever be described as universities at all. The sources they've relied on that I've seen are often decent enough (f sometimes skewed - although no sign of Fjordman at least, fortunately) - the problems lay more with weight, partisanship and cherry-picking, and posting one view as if it were uncontested fact, usually a "Eurocentric" one. That said I won't support any kind of ban based on that, or on the discussion here. I disagree with their perspective, but I haven't seen anything too egregious and I dislike the lynch-mob feel of this kind of thing. An RFCU might be the better option. N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't have deep experience of the topic area where these edits happened, so I'm not comfortable pronouncing that one side or another is right or wrong (or possibly both). However, I do have experience working with GPM on a different topic which was rather prone to fringe pov-pushing based on dubious sources, and I was impressed by GPM spending a lot of time addressing that problem with a combination of better sources & hard work. So, if the community agreed that there was problematic editing in a particular area, maybe a topic ban would be appropriate, but I would oppose a block. An RfC/U could be a good way to go, here. bobrayner (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Very little evidence provided, just a single incident of edit-warring from a few days ago. This is nowhere near enough for something as drastic as a topic ban. I also see a lot of incivility by Roscelese, which, accompanied by his replies to everyone who votes "oppose", makes think we have something of a WP:HOUND situation here. Athenean (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Like I said - the fact that I didn't have to dig through GPM's edit history to find plenty of examples of problematic editing is not a point in his favor. If, as looks like may happen, this goes to RFC/U, many more examples will be presented. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment/question. In this edit, dating from 3 October 2012, GPM inserted Fjordman's opinion that Islamophobia is a meaningless term. Presumably, we could easily find some other extreme-right dude saying the same about anti-Semitism. Would it be okay to insert in the latter article simply that "X said anti-Semitism is a meaningless term"? I surely hope not. This is what GPM inserted yesterday in the article on Islamophobia :

“ According to Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, "“Islamophobia” is a meaningless term. Just like the word “racism,” it is mainly used to harass Europeans and intimidate them into silence and submission in the face of the tsunami of mass immigration currently engulfing their countries."[ref]Fjordman: Irrational Fear of Islam?, frontpagemag.com, 2 Octber 2012, retrieved 3 October 2012[/ref] ”

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Your earlier "Noleander boat" comment seems to be about antisemitism. And the lede of the link you provided to Fjordman says "And the Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right Islamophobic [source needs translation] blogger who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman." The source needing translation is "Fjordman foreslo nazi-løsning". So it looks like you are saying Gun Powder Ma is either antisemitic, islamophobic, or Nazi, rather than editing in good faith, or trying to add multiple points of view to an article for balance. Neotarf (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote from the manual: "you want to be sure that all your political opponents are labelled, while you want to avoid labels for your friends. This way, your enemies appear to part of an extreme fringe, while your friends appear to be mainstream." It's easier to remember as "Label your enemy but never your friends". The point is "Because the [...] critics are not identified, readers assume they are mainstream, or representing some objective opinion. This is the key to the subtle smear. Use it." Tijfo098 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban regarding Islam and Muslims, broadly construed. GPM is clearly incapable of any pretence at neutrality regarding this issue, and is instead using Wikipedia as a platform to promote an openly arguably Islamophobic agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we seriously discussing a topic ban of an editor with 15K edits, on the basis of four questionable sources? Seriously? Even if the editor's edits are problematic, we owe the editor an RFCU at least. I don't doubt that the items listed are examples, rather than the full list of concerns, but if you don't make a case, and can't even bother to let the editor weigh in before reaching a verdict, we have something wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • While it does look like it's going to go to RFC/U, I'm not sure why his large number of edits speaks in his favor; if the diffs provided are a sampling of his large edit history, which they seem to be, this large edit history will just make things more difficult for everyone when we all have to clean it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose' GPM is misrepresented as an "Islamophobe"; his concern has always been the maintenence of the traditional view of Western primacy in scientific, engineeering and general intellectual developments in the medieval, Renaissance and Early Modern periods. For years his main concern was battling against assertions of Chinese originality in these areas (as exemplified by the books of Joseph Needham, about whose work many academics have concerns). A while back he was very active in rolling-back the work of Jagged85 (was it) boosterizing medieval Islamic work in science - a necessary thing to do though I think he sometimes went too far, and generally just removed anything suspect rather than attempting to add a balanced view. He is extremely combative and often unscrupulous in argument and use of sources, and his editing has often raised concerns, but to topic ban him as "anti-Islamic" as AndyTheGrump suggests would be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah yes. Citing far-right Islamophobe Fjordman to claim that Islamophobia doesn't exist is just about maintaining the traditional view of Western superiority, which, by the way, is not POV at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He makes valuable contributions when he isn't busting someone's chops...Modernist (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Such as? We've got users here complaining about the fact that I provided only four separate articles (in the past two days) where he added inappropriate sources, edit-warred, used false edit summaries, and blew off constructive criticism from other editors; if you're going to argue that these are meaningless because he does good things, it behooves you to provide, like, maybe one or two examples. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I have taken the liberty of striking Neotarf's comments in this discussion; they are unrelated to the subject at hand, and based on the content of the comments and Neotarf's canvassing ([23] [24]) of users who have disagreed with me in the past on unrelated articles to join this discussion, are clearly intended to hijack the discussion in the service of a personal vendetta. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've undone your striking for obvious reasons. Ryan Vesey 18:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is there another way you would recommend preventing this user from abusing WP process to further a separate vendetta? Perhaps hatting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Make your comment and allow other editors to discount his comments as they feel fit. Ryan Vesey 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh...And this is why behavioral discussions never get anywhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Roscelese, it is YOU who keeps on nagging to people who disagree with you. I remember your behaviour at a RfD-procedure where I got that sick of you, that I changed my opinion AGAINST your's. But striking out other user's comments is really crossing the line. I'm starting to believe this discussion should be about a person other than GPM.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I perhaps should have begun with hatting, as is standard practice for off-topic tangents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly, as someone stated earlier, Roscelese is a wiki hound who follows people around and edits anything not serving her ideological interests. YvelinesFrance (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Examining the edit history of the reporting party as well as the reported party is one thing; sabotaging a discussion because you dislike the user who began it is another. Like Neotarf's, your comments are a waste of the community's time and ought to be ignored. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• I need to investigate this matter thoroughly before I can give a proper opinion. But first I'd like to know why Open Doors (an organisation that monitors persecutions of christians) is "anti-islam." That would help me by making my decision.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My language may have been exaggerated, but the idea that a site dedicated to converting Muslims to Christianity is an admissible source is nonetheless rather silly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The diffs provided by Roscelese are entirely inadequate to support her case. Having looked through this thread, I think her hectoring and hounding of the editors who oppose what she wants is unacceptable and is of greater concern than the behaviour she complains of. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • How could I forget that these sorts of things are meant to be votes and not discussions? How silly of me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the discussion is showing that the majority disagrees with you and is tired of being hounded for it. AutomaticStrikeout 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If you like, take it to RFC/U as long as you don't badger the opposes there too. AutomaticStrikeout 21:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Can an IP User talk page be used to store a "userfy" version of an article under AfD?

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.

---

The IP talk page User talk:IP 12.153.112.21 is being used by the IP to store a "userfied" version of an article up for AfD. Is that appropriate? Note also that the article under consideration is about an AT&T product line and the IP is registered to AT&T. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is the talkpage for a user called IP 12.153.112.21 (talk · contribs) - it's not the IP talk page itself, which is User talk:12.153.112.21. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

oh, my bad. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So the user is still allowed to edit through the real open IP and use the improperly named user account talk page as a storage facility for their work? (as they did today [25]) -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC with below) I don't see any problem with them editing under their IP, the primary reason the user seems to have been blocked was because of the username which is confusingly similar to an IP (as this thread shows) which is forbidden under the username policy. Okay their requests for unblock were hardly productive but I wouldn't say they merit a block of the IP unless they continue in that vein. However it does seem inappropriate to use a blocked user's user or talk page in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. I'm presuming the IP isn't doing anything else bad Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

They're socking, ip address should be blocked. Nobody Ent 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are they doing anything bad to our articles? If not, leave them alone. It is not socking to edit with an IP if a username is blocked for being a bad username. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That IP is actually registered to the Answer Group (Outsourced call center --- I used to work for them ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No opinion about the possible socking and other possible misconduct but IP userspace exists just like any other userspace and working on article drafts in it (either pre-submission or after afd userfication) seems perfectly fine to me. As with anyone else, per WP:WEBHOST, the page shouldn't stay unless there's reasonable activity towards bringing it up to standards. I do remember seeing that username (or something like it) in the past. I don't have much opinion of the practice. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sloppy admin work all around here. The admin who blocked the account failed to leave any notice on their talk page. The admin who blocked the IP for socking failed to notice the account was soft blocked for a username violation, which means the blocking admin deliberately left open the option to just create another account or use an IP. I have therefore undone the block.

As to the question that opened this thread, I am not aware of any prohibition on an IP using having a userfied copy of an article. Common sense and AGD would seem to indicate it is perfectly ok so long as no other policies are being violated. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention Beeblebrox! I appreciate the opportunity to work out the existent content dispute on its own merits rather than to be precluded from a voice in the discussion. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd care to explain why you deleted Kosh's post above when you made your last posting? [26] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump here. I actually noticed the block and as per my earlier comment, I didn't think it was a good block, but I didn't say anything because it seemed your behaviour was fairly borderline with the silly username change requests and the apparent edit warring and ill consider comments, as highlighted on your talk page Deleting the comment here simply reenforced that view and suggests you're only a very short leash, if any remains. While WP:OUTING is forbidden, noting stuff about an IP based solely on a whois of the IP is not considered outing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree with Floquenbeam and possibly others that the original comment was not appropriate because of the inclusion of speculative information. I had some concerns of this at the time and should have voiced them. While I don't know if removal of the whole comment was the best way to deal with it (I stick with my view that the WHOIS information is not generally considered outing), I can see it may have been unclear to the IP. So on this particular issue, I can't fault the IP and apologise for my earlier comments. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad unblock IP was edit warring, creating a duplicate name, inserted the soon-to-be afd'd page on that page and was blocked appropriately. Sorry, that was sloppy admin work.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP has been edit-warring for some time. I have reported them to AIV several times (one report AIV report pending) but to no avail. I have even gone so far as to call the person's place of work (The Answer Group) to stop the user from editing. I recommend the 31 hour block be put back in place for "Disruptive Editing" and if this continues, a longer place put in place along with a range block (very limited collaterial damage). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good unblock The block reason was clearly invalid, and so it should have been undone. That there was potentially another good reason for blocking not mentioned in the block log or block notice doesn't change that. At this point I think we should limit further sanctions to any conduct that occurred or occurs after the unblock. Monty₈₄₅ 17:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The removed comment in question did more than "noting stuff about an IP based solely on a whois". My last request for oversight has been granted and I would appreciate editors waiting on a response on this one as well. If, however, I am mistaken in my understanding of WP policy, I would appreciate being notified in a collegial discussion rather than by "bad block". Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any use of oversight for a WhoIs of an IP, especially when the user has admitted on their conflict of interest on their talk page. So a WhoIs report saying that they work for a company that AT%T outsources to, is that "outing" in anyway. The IP is registered to the company, not the user using it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

::::: IP You're not being outed. You're using an IP address , and your companies name is listed on your wiki page as of this second, and I didn't even put it up to begin with. By the way, removing my comment is a violation of TPO. Yes, I hear you, but have someone else remove it not you. I've been in a similar situation, and I was counseled by a A very well respected admim that I need to not remove , collapse or censure anything related to or me, but rather, call notice to it ( civily) then allow another user to handle it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the record the blocking admin has agreed that they were in error and thanked me for correcting it. [27]

Also for the record WHOIS reports are very public, easily accessible information and as an oversighter I can guarantee you right now that it will not be suppressed. if you don't want to reveal your IP use an account, as in, an account not named for the IP it is using, which makes the whole idea of now crying foul that privacy was violated laughable. I suggest all parties just walk away from this situation, there is nothing more to do here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad unblock, the user was socking.

• Socking is the use of alternate account to avoid a sanction.
• The user name "IP 12.153.112.21" is disruptive because it is easily confused with an ip editor 12.153.112.21; accordingly the account was blocked.
• By posting on the page User talk:IP 12.153.112.21 the user used an alternate (ip) account to avoid a sanction -- use of the user name "IP 12.153.112.21." (The fact that the OP of this thread, an experienced Wikipedian, thought it was an IP talk page is prima facie evidence of that it's confusing.)
• Since both elements of one sockpuppetry definition a) alternate account and b) disruptive use of misleading account name are present, the user was, in fact, socking.

As an analogy consider if I was topic banned from AN for being annoyingly right all the time. If I edited as an ip to correct a spelling error on Print butter, that would not be socking, but if corrected the same spelling error on AN it would be socking. Likewise, the fact the editor edited as ip does not make it socking, but the continued use of a misleading account name, albeit through editing its talk page rather then editing with it, is socking. Nobody Ent 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Was it intentionally disruptive? Ryan Vesey 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the user know about the existing IP block, or would a reasonable person have known about it? If so, then they intended to dodge it using the account. There is clear intent to avoid an existing block here. --Jayron32 21:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they had placed 2 unblock name change requests that were denied and were posting to the page with those block notices as of this morning including specific page mark up to collapse those block notices. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Back up a minute. There seems to be some confusion as to the sequence of events. The named account with IP-like name was issued a username only soft block over a week ago. That explicitly leaves open the option of continuing to edit under a non-infringing identity, either a new username or as an IP. That they did so when their terrible suggestions for new usernames was were rightfully declined does not constitute socking as the blocking admin did not elect to autoblock the underlying IP when issuing the initial block. It's just not socking. It also seems that other behaviors have led this to now be under discussion at ANI, so this thread can be closed and discussion should move over there if it needs to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not confused. Meaning depends on context. Why were they blocked, and did the ip editing continue the same disruption (yes)? Under the circumstances, if the ip account had edited pretty another other page, it would've have been socking, but they continued the essential part of the behavior that was disruptive. You're asserting not socking from a bureaucratic letter of the law perspective. Nobody Ent 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why were they blocked? How many times need this be explained? The named account was soft blocked for a username violation. By editing as an actual IP they were manifestly not repeating the behavior that led to the block. It really is as simple as that despite your attempts to make it complicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Subpages

The IP should take the userfied draft to AFC. This is the main reason wp:afc started. No one can userfy an article draft to their talk page but instead to a sub-userpage. An IP can not make a sub-page as far as I understand. (this is also why we have public wp:sandbox) 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the case. I just now logged out and created two pages: User talk:98.223.196.72 and User talk:98.223.196.72/test. Therefore, it's inappropriate to host this article on the main talk page, simply because the IP can create it as a subpage. Of course, this isn't by itself reason for sanction, since we can't expect the IP to know about subpages. Best solution in my mind is to say "hey, this isn't the best place for this content; please move it to a subpage" and to give directions on how to do that. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm, is it really considered acceptable for Neutralhomer to phone 12.153.112.21's place of work, as he admits to doing when he didn't get his desired result at AIV? I was under the impression that that sort of behavior was deeply frowned upon. --92.2.82.159 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is the sort of thing that is usually only done in response to long term abuse, it was way over the top to take such an action in this case as far as I can see. For some reason there seem to be few users who are downright desperate to find any way they can to get this person into some kind of trouble. I don't really know why that is but it is getting pretty ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems Neutralhomer has also said at the List of AT&T U-verse channels talk page "I spoke with a supervisor there and they are looking into the matter, so I would get off the internet and get back to work while you still have a job." That sounds a threat to 12.153.112.21 employment and therefore a personal attack. Powergate92Talk 02:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, one, I was given permission at the AfD for the "List of AT&T U-verse channels" page for the page to be moved to my userspace after deletion. It wasn't, it was moved to 12.153.112.21's page, I copy/pasted it and moved it (as is) to my userspace per the approval. Since the AfD opened the door for other AfDs for other "List of <company> channels" pages, I copy/pasted others in response of the forthcoming AfDs. None of the pages were under CC-By-SA-3.0 and are in Wikipedia userspace per admin approval.

As for calling 12.153.112.21 place of employment, if he is still employed, then it didn't have the desired effect...which was to have him stop vandalizing Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. See the bottom of the page where it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details." Also see Wikipedia's copyright policy.With that, User:Neutralhomer/List of AT&T U-verse Channels needs to have attribution. Powergate92Talk 04:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I was given permission by two seperate admins to have the pages in my userspace, it's a moot point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• We have indeffed editors in the past for phoning people's place of business for this exact same purpose. Such action is 100% inexcusable from an editor. NH - I'm usually on your side, but you know far better than do have done such a thing. I'm utterly shocked dangerouspanda 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Neutralhomer for the above reported off-wiki harassment. Explanation is at User talk:Neutralhomer#Indefinite block for severe off-wiki harassment. As usual, feel free to change, reduce or overturn the block if there is consensus to do so or if the user gives reason to do so. Fram (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To prevent meatball:ForestFires, please centralize any discussion to Neutralhomer's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the issue of contacting the organisation behind the IP clarified anywhere? I've contacted a couple of schools in the past where I thought they'd like to know what was going on, and I'm sure I've seen somewhere that that sort of contact is ok. Of course, it depends upon the context and I am not making any comments on Neutralhomer's contact as I've not looked into the details. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between getting some schoolkid reprimanded for vandalizing Wikipedia and trying to get somebody sacked from their job. There is, even more crucially, a difference between defending the project against vandalism and trying to get the upper hand in a content dispute (no matter how misguided or otherwise disruptive the other party is.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This behaviour is disgusting - I call for a community ban for Neutralhomer. This isn't his first serious offence, and the fact that he still continues doing seriously wrong stuff after two indef blocks is a demonstration of consistently poor judgement. Max Semenik (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request. GiantSnowman 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've declined a second one. --Jayron32 13:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks particularly to Beeblebrox and Fram even if you only considered this your duty. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

User:Neutralhomer community ban proposal

MaxSem called, above, for a community ban. I've seen a lot of troublesome users at Wikipedia receive blocks and bans down the years, but I'm struggling to think of many incidents of harrassment that go as far as phoning someone's employer. NH's words at the time (onwiki) strongly suggest he was looking for the IP to lose their job, but even if I accept his statement that he merely wanted the user's internet privileges suspended, this is egregious harrassment from a user with a long blocklog. I rarely agree to community ban proposals - this time, I support it. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Quite frankly, this crosses a line. The last time I saw someone doing something this reprehensible was Eecoleetage, and we know what happened to him. I'm not hearing "I know what I did was wrong, give me another shot" - I'm hearing "okay, okay, I won't call this user again, are you happy now?" with tinges of "you can't block me because other than this I do good work". Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Currently undecided. I don't plan to wade deeply into this or engage in a drawn out debate. I respect Homer, think he probably regrets his actions and think a community ban is probably a little much. There is a single thing though that he has said more than once that does bother me though. NH has said "people shouldn't be editing from work" in one form or another a couple of times. To be blunt, that's just none of his business. That is solely between the editor, their employer and their IT dept, not the time management police. I would like to see NH either clarify or retract that premise. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I am a fairly tolerant person on Wikipedia, and I believe in giving many second chances for a wide range of behaviors, especially when a person is genuinely contrite. However, this crosses the line for me. The fact that someone would take a dispute like this, and especially such an inconsequential dispute as whether or not a list of TV channels should be included on Wikipedia, and would pursue it to the point of calling a person's workplace with the intent of having them sanctioned by their employers is so beyond the pale that it boggles the mind. That anyone would even consider such an action as appropriate in the first place is a clear indication that they have no business at Wikipedia in any form. If someone would choose to do that, I stop trusting any assurances they make going forward. This whole thing stops being a game when someone's livelihood is threatened in this way, and Wikipedia needs to take a hard stance on something like this. Discussions can get heated on-wiki, and I can forgive a lot, but someone who is willing to go to this length over something so inconsequential is clearly not to be trusted. Of course, now that he realizes he's going to be banned, he's backpedalling like crazy and trying to assure us it won't happen again. Sorry, no, this is not like cussing someone out, or calling them a bad name, or anything like that. This raises it to another level, and it cannot be allowed to pass with a "sorry, my bad, I won't do it again!" Just no. --Jayron32 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support Oppose - the action itself was abhorrent, the unblock requests were weak, and the long block log shows that, despite the good work this editor can do, they cannot function as part of the community when things don't go their way. However, as others below have said, a community ban may be a slight over-reaction. I would insread prefer to see an indefinite block, until as such time NH can provide his worth again. GiantSnowman 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Support. Harassment of this sort is utterly unacceptable and, given NH's history of problematic behaviour, inexcusable. His unblock requests, as Ironholds notes, don't inspire any confidence. A user willing to take things this far is a hazard to the community. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support An enormous block log, many of which are for similar battleground behaviour, suggests an unwillingness or inability to edit as part of the community. Neutralhomer's constructive edits (of which there are many) don't balance out the problems caused by this sort of attitude. The two unblock requests, based as they were on promises not to interact with one specific editor, fail to address the underlying issue. Although it will be a shame to lose him, Neutralhomer has had more than enough rope by this point; this chilling off-wiki harassment would be solid grounds for a ban on its own, but combined with his history... a ban is the only sensible solution here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Snitching to a user's employer because of an apparent content dispute is a bright-line offense. I would support a community ban for ANY editor who did this. Skinwalker (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is way overblown. If we're going to ban folks because they contact owners of IPs who are "misbehaving" on Wikipedia, then we have no business having templates like {{Shared IP corp}}. The template says "In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation." So we want to ban the guy for doing exactly what the template says we may do? There are plenty of other issues with this editor, but this is the wrong reason to ban the guy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 1000) Without commenting on the community ban proposal, the {{Shared IP corp}} and related templates are there so editors can contact the owner of the IP to complain about vandalism. They aren't there to call an employer because you are in a content dispute with the user. The chilling effects created by "I can phone your employer if you disagree with me" are the same as or worse than "I will sue you unless you agree with me." Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Here! here!"Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose Frankly, what Neutralhomer did was stupid to the umpteenth degree and he deserves an indefinite block for it, at least until we feel like he's ready to come pack without the problem, but a community ban is entirely different. A community ban says "We don't want you anymore and you shouldn't can't be part of this community". While his action was terrible, I believe a community ban is a great overreaction. Ryan Vesey 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Neutralhomer's behaviour was untenable, and if you read his appeal against the block and his subsequent talk page comments, he is still trying to justify his actions by claiming that he "was trying to stop vandalism". That he cannot grasp the elementary tenets of WP:VANDAL after all this time suggests to me that he simply isn't competent to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calm down. everyone. He made a mistake; he needs to clear that up by clearly stating that it simply will not happen again. Mebbe a mentor. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Trying to get someone sacked because you a) think you have the moral right to decide where and when that editor can contribute and b) are in a content dispute with said editor is so far beyond acceptable behaviour that I'm struggling to articulate how unacceptable that is. I'm just shaking my head at some of the oppose comments trying to make this sound somehow understandable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Absurd I was actually in the middle of emailing Homer when this came across my talk page. What Homer did was stupid. Banning him because of it is not only over the top, but WP:POINTed and arguably more extreme. He overreacted and basically screwed up royally. How is what we are proposing any different? How is banning going to prevent damage? How is this anything more than patting ourselves on our backs at how clever and just we are? No, banning isn't needed. The block certainly was, and some education and a clear path forward is needed, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon by overreacting here. Everyone should just drop this and let the people on the talk page deal with it in a calm, collected and respectable manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as moral support, at least. I'm shocked, I have to say. Homer and me go way back, and to say we didn't start off as friends is an understatement. I have come to appreciate him and like him, though I think it's fair to say I've criticized him often enough for his occasional outbursts (which I think have certainly lessened in recent years). I don't know what came over him: of course calling someone's boss is unacceptable. Well, I do know, I think, what came over him--rage. Which I thought he was managing pretty well. What comes after is partly shame, IMO, hence the claim of stopping vandalism. To err is human, and a ban (I'm happy to see someone, above, agrees with me) is too much. Oh, Andy, I find it difficult to accept statements about basic Wikipedia tenets from you sitting atop a moral stallion--but that's in passing. Give Homer a break, even if an indefinite one with the standard offer attached. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I too am uncomfortable with his behavior, however it certainly does not rise to the level of deserving a community ban. Let the process play out through normal unblock requests. Community bans are the ultimate sanction Wikipedia can apply and we are far to quick to call for them. Monty₈₄₅ 15:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The guy made a mistake, has fessed up and apologized and promised not to do it again. Whatever happened to the quality of mercy not being strained? Keep the block if you will (though, at this point does it really harm Wikipedia to unblock him?) but a community ban? Way overreaction, imo. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is too extreme. Yes, we've had problems with this editor, but it's not as though he hasn't made some good contributions or even that he doesn't recognise what he did was wrong. I don't think he's going to do this again - and if he does then I'd probably support a ban. But not now, I don't see any harm in an unblock. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing productive to be gained at this point. But I will say I'm very shaken by this and would not intercede if similar behavior recurs. Going outside the playground to settle scores is not on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - overkill. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban, indefinite block, whatever you want to call it. Neutralhomer has a long history of getting into disputes with other users and then becoming obsessive about that person, leading to personal attacks and harassment. This particular incident crossed a very serious line. The comments that "oh well, he did an oopsie but promises not to do it again" understate both the nature of the incident and the chronic problems with this editor over the years. – Steel 15:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The lack of comments advocating an immediate unblock tells you we take this seriously. But that we want it to be in the area of a negotiated return, if possible, rather than having discretion taken out of the hands of admins.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you were proposed somewhere above as a mentor. How do you feel about that? Drmies (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reluctant. I'd have to see what was involved, and what NH was willing to undertake. I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not going to commit myself blindly.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been framed in a rather unhelpful way, with community ban on one side and all other responses on the other side, where some are downplaying the significance of these events and suggest unblocking now. A substantial number want to keep the indefinite block in place without a formal ban and my comment does not apply to this category of opposers. – Steel 17:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think most of us agree that block was well deserved and shouldn't be lifted without a clear path forward, at least from what I see. What he did was a perfect reason for an indef block, until he can demonstrate sufficient clue. He is part way there. But that is different than a ban, which means "you are no longer worth the effort, you are a burden on the community with virtually no redeeming qualities". I've voted for bans before when that was the case, but this isn't that case here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To make it clear: I strongly support the block. I just think there is the chance of a path back, but the ball is squarely in Neutralhomer's court to propose the path. That being said, I think the lesson will be lost unless there's some time blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And possibly some editing restrictions installed, maybe the TV area and 1RR, or both. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The behaviour was wrong, but the editor does not appear to be irredeemably bad. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems counterproductive and overkill at this point. – Connormah (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose So far as I can see, what he did was wrong, but I feel he did it for the good of Wikipedia as he saw it at that moment. If he does it again (which I very much doubt), then he'd be showing that he didn't understand what was wrong with it (but I think he does now). I would probably support a timed but not indefinite ban then. Peridon (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe next time he will succeed in getting the editor sacked but that's OK as long we give a user who clearly doesn't understand the line another chance. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appalling behaviour from Neutralhomer? Yes. Community ban needed? No. Neutralhomer overreacted badly, but we'll only compound that if we respond with a similarly emotional overreaction. The current block is the appropriate response, and we should not rule out a negotiated return. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know that Homer certainly wouldn't count me among his circle of friends, but I do feel the need to state that a community ban is far too excessive here. I am mindful of his block log, but it's been quite a while since the last time Homer got himself blocked and it is apparent he has become mellower over time. I've read the exchanges on his talk page, and I do see that he's trying hard to satisfy the demands for apologies and promises that have been presented to him. It's not easy to do that, particularly when you are stressed, so I hope folks will cut him some slack. His heart is in the right place; he's had a very severe shock from this discussion; I have no doubt he'll stay "on the rails" for a long time now. We don't need a community ban to remove a problem that has now ceased to exist. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• support block/oppose ban For some reason Homer and one or two other users seems to be desperate to find anything they could to get leverage on the user at the other end of this. In his zeal for finding some way to "win" this content dispute by any means necessary, he went way over the line and did something unbelievably crass and stupid. For a minute there he tried to tap dance around that fact and make it out as if it was not a big deal. He appears now to understand the reality of the situation and to honestly regret this monumental lapse in judgement. I think he needs a break from WP and WP needs a break from him, but just a break, not a ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• support block/oppose ban per Beeblebrox. If NH makes firm commitment to never, ever to do that again, support reducing block to a period not less than week. (Although WP as a community may have occasion to contact an IP owner, NH's lack of judgement should prohibit them from ever unilaterally making that decision again.) Nobody Ent 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think that would be a decent requirement. Ryan Vesey 17:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been trying to assume good faith and keep things civility with Neutralhomer even with are recent disagreements. However it's getting a bit hard to assume good faith in him when he is not assuming good faith in others as he did in this case. Finding that he called someone's employer over a content dispute is where I see him crosses the line with civility. Per AndyTheGrump comment above he does not seem to understand the different between WP:Vandalism and a content dispute. With that, I think the block should be continued until he gets a better understanding of WP:Assume good faith, WP:Civility, and WP:Vandalism. However, I don't think a ban is needed right now, if he were to do it again than I support a ban. Powergate92Talk 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support block Several years ago I and a few other editors were sort of informal mentors for NH. I stuck my neck out for him then, and he rewarded my trust. I wish he'd remembered the advice offered then: turn off the computer and walk away. There are still plenty of people he could have consulted if he needed a reality check. I'm very disappointed, and I believe NH needs some space between him and WP for a while, but I don't see a ban as useful or necessary. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think that community ban is needed in this stage.He had his nose clean for more then an year also he was a good editor--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Anyone is free to make use of abuse@hostingprovider.com or other means of ISP contact regarding a problematic IP user as they see fit. If someone does not want this information available, make an account. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral ban/support strong sanction: I don't know if a community ban is the solution, but this has to be addressed in the strongest possible terms to make it clear that this simply should not be done, it's only one step down from a physical threat of harm! Things going off-wiki like this open up legal worries for both the perpetrator and for wikipedia Had someone done this to me (though luckily I am self-employed), unless they were someone I already "knew" off-wiki and could manage myself on my own, I would probably call law enforcement and possibly try to get them criminally charged for something like stalking or harassment, or perhaps some charge related to abuse of a telephone per FCC regs. If it were a fellow US Citizen, they could wind up with the feds at their door, frankly. My view is that the dramah that happens on-wiki stays on-wiki. You don't go off-wiki except if there is some concern with something like safety, danger of actual harm, or perhaps identity theft (someone claiming to be a famous person, but isn't that person, for example, might want to alert the real individual in some fashion). Otherwise, communication should not be made with third parties without the consent of all involved and you most certainly do not use a wikipedia disagreement to harass someone in real life. This concerns me deeply. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Apology - yes - stern warning - yes - never again - yes; hopefully he'll learn from his mistakes...Modernist (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Adding WP US to a talkpage

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.

---

moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. I have been adding the tag of WikiProject United States to all pages related to the US, including American citizens. User:Elizium23 thinks this is "overzealous tagging", but the same applies to WikiProject Biography for example--all human beings are tagged under this project. Similarly, all French citizens are tagged under WikiProject France, etc. We have discussed this on your project's talkpage but have come to no conclusion: [28]. Another Wikipedian, User:Kumioko agreed with me about tagging American citizens under WP US. I also don't always have time to assess the article, but as Wikipedia is a work in progress and a collaborative effort, I assume someone else will do the rest of the work whenever they can. However, it's a complete waste of everyone's time, and will lead to Wikipedia's undoing if work gets deleted, for example here: [29]. Notice that I suggested tagging David Ayer, who just produced End of Watch on the WP US talkpage, and then another user, User:Ottawahitech, did it: [30]. I seem to be vindicated in what I'm doing, but again, I won't do it if my work is undone/reverted. I also can't ask for permission every time I see an American citizen's page, so we need to come to an agreement. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects each have their own criteria for determining what falls within the scope of the project, so it's not really likely that you will receive an admin response here that will enforce a decision that benefits anyone in this matter. See Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination#WikiProjects do not own articles, with regards to tagging articles. However, the context of that relates more to removing banners of a project you're not a member of. But if you are simply flying around Wiki tagging a whole load of articles without assessing them, and this is resulting in backlogs which other members are begrudgingly having to work through, then it is probably better not to engage in this, unless you are assessing them yourself as you tag. There's nothing to be gained by a wikiproject tagging articles without assessing grade, importance and task forces – grading helps editors determine what the current quality is at, incase they want to improve it. Also, tagging each and every person just because they're a "U.S. citizen" may be overdoing it somewhat. From what I gather, that project is more about the U.S. as a country, so unless a citizen has had a notable impact on U.S. culture, such as presidents, civil rights leaders, moguls, celebrities, military figures, notorious criminals/gangsters, etc, then it's probably best left for WikiProject Biography. Just because a man is U.S. born and notable for something to warrant a page, let's say a celebrity chef, for example, doesn't necessarily mean they've had a huge impact on American society and that project members need to monitor and develop that page.. biographers are best suited to such tasks. Tagging based solely on national identity is bound to pose problems with some members, which is why common sense seems better and it is probably best only to tag those of significant cultural importance. We're getting to the stage where a lot of Public Relations groups are creating articles for barely-known individuals, businesses, etc, as a means of advertising. Do you really want to tag every average Joe, just because they're American, and are only notable because of a few questionable mentions in a newspaper? How about popular American YouTubers.. are they worth tagging as "U.S." given that it's hardly likely they affect U.S. culture at all, they're just entertaining? You should consider a lot more than "citizenship" alone before tagging anyone, or WikiProjects become bogged down, members become confused, and they start to drift away out of frustration because the scope is losing it's focus. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the specific policy/guideline/whatever reference for this, but IIRC the policy/guideline/whatever is "Don't remove Wikiproject tags. Period". Or pretty close to that. The reason is that Wikiproject tags are placed by the projects to indicate articles that people who have an interest in that project may also want to edit. Tagging the talk page is not an issue of identifying the subject as being anything OTHER than something that people who use the Wikiproject may be interested it. As a classic example, Talk:Nazism is tagged as being part of "WikiProject Jewish history", not because the Nazis were particularly nice to Jewish people, but because people working on Jewish history have an interest in Naziism, broadly speaking. Likewise with any project: It's up to people interested in the project to decide what is, and is not, under their interest, which broadly means don't take down other people's tags. --Jayron32 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the last sentence of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination#WikiProjects do not own articles – however, whilst you shouldn't remove other project's banners, you can remove your own, especially if the banner seems superfluous. e.g. there must be thousands of animals indigenous to the U.S. but they don't all need the "U.S." banner when there are animal and wildlife wikiprojects better suited to developing them. A culturally important animal like the Buffalo (American Bison) might warrant tagging, but not each and every frog, ant, fish and beast that ever walked. I think that's the point some of the members are missing, whilst others are completely aware of it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand though, I've seen WPUS tags added to the talk pages of Wikipedia-space pages belonging to other WikiProjects, which is a bit much. I've also seen WPUS tag every possible article in sight, and such obnoxious tagging should be reverted. --Rschen7754 23:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, you wouldn't tag "The Bible" as "U.S." just because America has religion would you? Wouldn't tag a chemical as "U.S." just because it was discovered by an American scientist? There has to be limits to prevent projects being flooded with nonsense. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WPUS should tag whichever articles they're prepared to support, just like any other WikiProject. Last I checked, they had tagged only 10% the number of articles that WPBIO supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I'm a member of WikiProject United States, and I don't tag much for it. I think WPUS should focus on American biography, geography, and history. Now that's already thousands and thousands of articles pbp 00:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You may have a major point there. The larger the project, the more fragmented the interests of the participants. Let me ask a question, if you have a project that covers 10% of the encyclopedia, what are the chances that 50% of the participants have enough of a common interest to focus on improving a significant number of articles? I also accept that at some point a project can also be too small. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing? Since when was Wiki a competitive arena to see who could tag more articles? Last I knew there were more than 6 billion people in the world. Are there more than 6 billion items that represent U.S. culture? That kind of attitude is what leads to project mis-management and why so many are over-strained. No sensibe Wikiproject just tags "what they're prepared to support" willy-nilly, they define a scope in order to prevent the wrong types of articles being tagged because they're too loosely related. As is clearly happening at project U.S. where members are evidently complaining about it. If bog-paper had been invented in the U.S. would you tag that? The LGBT flag was designed in San Francisco, why not tag that too if you think U.S. could do better than the LGBT project, simply because it's "American"? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That kind of sums up why I was not in favor of them using their project tag to include some projects I work on. While WPUS may have more eyes, that does not mean it is better. I think time has shown that tagging appears to be more important then working on the articles already tagged. Using WPBIO as a comparison, bodes poorly for any project since most of those articles need work and assessment. Maybe those two make the point that projects need to be smaller to be effective. I did make a suggestion for some kind of cooperative tagging to say that smaller projects were by default willing to work with WPUS, but that went no where. Also, can editors be aware of the indent with replies? It's getting hard to figure out where some of the comments belong. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting taking all these things. We have a problem however regarding tagging (or not) pages of American citizens...actually, mostly American actors and American movies. I don't see why those two things shouldn't get tagged. American actors for example are 1) American citizens 2)represent the US on the Big Screen (see soft power). Similarly American businessmen completely fall into the purview of the wikiproject I think. I however don't want to add tags if they get removed as it happened a few days ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Because, you're not tagging it because "he's an American guy" or "this is an American film", you're tagging it because "we can develop and maintain this article, as it represents the U.S. entire". John Wayne, big pro-American guy, very notable - tag him. His film Stagecoach, made in America, set in America, but it hardly represents the U.S., so it's best tagged by Project Films and Project Westerns whose members have more interest in such things. WikiProject's are a bit like categories, you've got to know what represents the parent "U.S." and what is secondary, and can be managed by other projects whose scope is more focused. Otherwise we just end up with a ton of over-tagged articles, which is detrimental to the purpose of having projects to focus on key articles. Your argument is basically "tag it because it's American", without even considering how it represents America. Which will simply result in the project becoming a nationalistic hat-collector project, rather than one that aims to develop and maintain articles, that focus on U.S. values. Not every "made in America" film, kids programme, B movie actor, porn star, stunt man, and such is going to matter an iota to the majority of the U.S., so they get tagged and... nothing ever becomes of it. Same with actors.. are you going to tag every U.S. child actor who had a few cameo appearances? e.g. Peter Ostrum? Every tacky second-rate B-movie, American album, and soundtrack? Given that the purpose of Wiki is to create and maintain an encyclopedia, how does is benefit from project U.S. tagging every hint of America in sight? It seems impractical.. worse when an article is tagged with U.S. / their home U.S. State / Bio / Film and so on.. at this rate we'll be tagging every known gay person with LGBT, every religious person with Christian, Jewism or Islamic, until we can't move for tags. That's why it's over-zealous to turn project U.S. into a stereotype project that "land grabs" every article it can lay its eyes on. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you've forgotten one quintessential thing: priority. Generally speaking, projects focus on improving their top (~1%) or high (~10%) articles. I'm fine with those priorities being distributed across a wide variety of fields (particularly the trio I mentioned above). In practice, an article being tagged as low-importance by a WikiProject doesn't really mean anything, on the U.S. project or any other project. But, as I said, I don't tag much for WikiProject U.S.; when I do, I tag something that would likely be mid-priority or higher. I do reassess existing tags, however pbp 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. For all but the smallest of projects, tagging an article with the lowest priority level (or which would be the lowest priority level if the tagger bothered to assess it) is a waste of time - especially if the article's already been tagged by another project. The only exception is WPBIO, because it gives maintenance categories and template notices relating to WP:BLP. Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. It is 100% up to the participants in the WikiProject. There is no rule that they be big enough to work on everything. WikiProject Medicine isn't going to work on every single article within its scope this year, but I doubt that any of you believe that several thousand rare genetic disorders and rare cancers should be excluded from the project's scope just because there aren't enough people to get to everything right away. WPMED is, however, prepared to answer questions if someone needs help at those articles, and to assess them for the WP:1.0 team, and that's a valid level of support.

There's nothing wrong with having half a dozen projects tag a page. If WPUS wants to tag something, that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to tag it, too.

Tagging low-priority subjects isn't a waste of time: WikiProjects are not treated equally by the WP:1.0 team (=the only reason anyone assesses articles in the first place). The formula treats narrow-scope projects differently from wide-scope ones. A B/Low rating from WPUS is more valuable than a B/Low rating from a group like "WikiProject Western film actors from the 1960s". It's also valuable to tag pages if the group can provide specialized assistance. For example, Tom Cruise is tagged by WikiProject LGBT, which is better positioned than any other group to deal with disputes about a single paragraph in it. This is not one of their "core topics" (they don't participate in "importance" ratings), but if you've got a dispute about that one paragraph, then you're better off asking for their assistance than asking for WikiProject New York's or WikiProject Religion's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just been looking at Template:WikiProject United States and notice that Project U.S. does not use Taskforces. Each of the U.S. states have their own projects, supported by Project U.S. though and there are other American projects. If a few U.S. members are going to insist on scattergun tagging every U.S. citizen, movie and blade of grass then task-forces should be used to sub-categorise the articles, rather than dumping them all in one heading. Either that, or simply don't tag them at all and leave the smaller national projects to worry about it. You don't need Project U.S. and a State project, and U.S. Film or Music, as well as independent Projects Bio, Film or Music all hopping on one article.. that's really not the point of projects. The WP 1.0 tables aren't "scoreboards", they're assessment tables, and unless a project is willing to actually maintain and develop an article itself, what's the point in tagging it if it can see 2 or 3 other closely-related projects already tagged? Chances are, most American members of Project U.S. are also a member of their home state.. so really, this two-fold tagging with U.S./State is not increasing interest or potential of improvement. If, as one editor stated, only the top/high tagged articles receive most focus, then clearly by reducing the number of articles tagged, to a less broad definition of what Project U.S. covers, distributed amongst however many members it has, results in more articles being developed. Most projects WP1.0 table are bottom-heavy with more Stubs/Start entries, and given the time it takes to research, write, develop, assess and promote an article to A, GA or even FA standards, then very few low-quality articles enter the top/high rating per year. The only effective solution is to define the tagging criteria more specifically, and untag articles that do not fit the bill. Less bottom, more top, more chance of members wanting to wade through the low-quality seeds instead of keep watering the fully grown articles, which has no real impact on improving articles. The analogy I've used before, and will use again here is this: the difference between someone who just watches the same top-quality articles to maintain them and remove vandalism from time to time, compared to someone who creates new articles or develops Stub/Starts to A-class as higher, is like the difference between someone who builds an extension on their home, and someone who washes the windows frequently.. one adds value, the other does not. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is tagging with a low priority a waste of time? It still allows the project to follow the progress of the article via article alerts. In WP:GERMANY the majority of recent article promotions where articles of low importance to the understanding of the subject matter "Germany". The wider input from the project had not been gained if those articles had not been tagged. The same is true about PRODs, AFDs and RMs. The all are notified to the group and action can be taken. WP:US is a slightly interesting beast as it is hated with a passion by some and therefore they do not want articles tagged as WP:US and they will fight tooth and claw to get the tags removed of their articles, and some of the stateprojects do not act as taskforces, but the majority do, so I do not understand the previous posters comment that there are no taskforces. In fact if you check the banner it allows for different importance assessments for each of these sub-projects. A WP:US importance of Low can at the same time be rated Mid for Ohio and High for Cape Cod. Those subprojects can still function with their own article alerts ect but have the collective support of the larger group. Another thing that a lot of people do not understand is that the WikiProject tagging is part of the overall WP:1.0 assessment which looks at the overall size of projects and does a statistical analysis accross the various projects to establish the number of articles which are to be included for every core subject. There being part of different subject projects is truly helpful for the article to make the final cut. Agathoclea (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, from the top: A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a method of categorizing articles. So "WikiProject WhatamIdoing's friends" is a perfectly fine WikiProject, and you could start "WikiProject People who think WhatamIdoing is nuts" and support exactly the same articles. The point is that we would work with each other, and you would work with each other, and if we and y'all can't work together in one big, happy group, then it is 100% fine for us to form two separate, smaller groups.

That is exactly what's happened here. Most of people at the state projects are not interested in working together with the people at the US project. They are separate groups of people. Therefore they are separate WikiProjects.

At this point, I'd ike to know why you even care. Are they out goring your favorite ox? do you feel denigrated because somebody else expressed an interest in helping with "your" article? Don't you have something better to do than to tell some other volunteer how to use his time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I got the strange feeling we agree on this. Agathoclea (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to stay out of this conversation largely because I am tired of talking about what should be a fundamental rule...that WikiProject should be able to freely tag the articles in their scope. Unfortunately, from day one, WikiProject US has been under attack for tagging, which was part of the reason it failed and was shuttered before I started it back up a couple years ago. The bottom line is, if a project doesn't tag an article then they have no responsibility to develop or maintain it, period. So these arguments that it never helped do this and that are really supid and pointless because of course the project didn't help do anything if its not allowed to tag it. Secondly, we are and have been wasting huge amounts of time, energy and hardrive space bickering about simple concepts. Cooperation, team work and collaboration. These are fundamental principles that Wikipedia goes by and yet they seem to be lost on this we own the article stay away bullshit that's been going on. I am finding it very petty, tiresome and quite frankly childish. At this point I think myself and the other members of WPUS have done a lot of good work to a lot of articles so if one or 2 editors don't like the WPUS tag on their pet article then quite frankly I don't give a shit. Deal with it and grow up. Were all here to build an encyclopedia and to expand articles each in our own way and if that rubs a few editors raw that others are encrouching on their pet space then thats just tough. Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasam Oh hey, look! It's a backdoor debate about Wikiproject US, again... No individual project holds ownership of a article. Use common sense when tagging (Do you really need a WP:Organism project tag for a specific species of ant?). Disagree with the tagging of an article to a specific project? DISCUSS IT, don't hostiley remove the project tag. I'm saying this at both WP:US members and other projects who think they have a lock on the rights to what projects a article can be shared with. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely involved in this situation, but this should be closed - there is nothing admins can do about this situation. --Rschen7754 08:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

eyes needed

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.

---

Noting to horrible yet, but I have feeling that we may need uninvolved admins at some point at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's like rain on your wedding day.... --Jayron32 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

On our wedding day a car got broken into and all the wallets and gifts were stolen. I suspect the Romney team, of course--and I still lack a set of steak knives. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet they left the fondue pot behind. First, the Romney crew don't believe in the cultural melting pot; second, all those forks in one place surely does not meet the family-first definition of a proper relationship. Third, where does big corporate health care make any money when everyone shares nicely? dangerouspanda 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The preceding four comments remind me of the type of stuff User:Baseball Bugs used to do that led to a ban discussion last February. Is this what ya'll what AN to be? Logically per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV it would be appropriate for me et. al. to start dumping anti Obama comments in here -- will that improve WP at all? Nobody Ent 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So... you're equating lighthearted banter with disruptive POV editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly we need to add a few yaks. -— Isarra ༆ 08:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Stale-ish 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.

---

I found an old unblock request from User:Noodleki. It would appear that they were blocked indef on 23 September for repeated copyvios, following which they posted two fairly contentious unblock requests, both denied. A third unblock request went up on 24 September, and has yet to be answered. Had the third request been as angry and incivil as the first two, I'd have closed it on sight - but it seemed that the user may have calmed down enough to discuss the matter. Or maybe not, I dunno. But I'd rather someone take a look and put it to bed for good - either way - before just dismissing it. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, the unblock request is at User_talk:Noodleki#2_problems_with_your_work. Thanks in advance for taking a quick look. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will look at this now (posting here to prevent edit conflicts!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the catch UltraExactZZ, I agree the latest request is much calmer and have unblocked. I will keep an eye on their talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries - thank you for the quick and well-reasoned response. I'll watchlist their talk as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Barts1a topic ban reinstated

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've just reinstated Barts1a (talk · contribs)'s topic ban on posting on noticeboards as he was engaging in clearly disruptive conduct in relation to the above discussion (including in follow-up posts on an editor's talk page). My rationale for this is at User talk:Barts1a#Topic ban reinstated, and I've also notified his mentor. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I could not disagree with this topic ban more. I see exactly two comments by Barts1a (talk · contribs) in that thread—one a !vote (which is clearly appropriate), and one telling a clearly disruptive editor to drop the stick (which, while not nice, was clearly deserved). There is nothing that even vaguely hints at possibly some day warranting a topic ban, much less a bright line. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, Nick did not reinstate the topic ban based on the vote but based on Barts1a's threat of a block here and repeated on the user's talk page. The easing of the block restictions occurred about a month ago. If you read that discussion, you'll see that the biggest concerns were Barts1a's posts on administrative noticeboards and his acting like an admin. Several admins felt that even though two components of the ban were being removed, Barts1a should still avoid noticeboards. Reinstating the topic ban seems entirely justified given his behavior, not to mention coming so soon after the lifting.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was my reasoning. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Barts1a also started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247 because he disagreed with Ihardlythinkso's support of StillStanding. He attempted to delete the SPI when other editors disagreed with him. Support rebanning from notice boards --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good call. Looking at the full breadth of actions by Barts1a, and not just the comments in the thread above, show that this was within the types of actions that led to his former topic ban. When the ban was lifted, it appears that he was unable to stop himself from falling into the same patterns of behavior as before. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us all... --Jayron32 12:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

copyright problem

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.

---

Alpha Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. The alpha generation page is a copyright violation. Could someone please remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.160 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

At a quick glance it certainly appears that parts of it may well be, though I've not been able to find the source. Do you know where it is copied from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yuk - this gets worse. Some of it seems to be copied from our Generation article, which in turn seems to have copied material from the Pew Research Center website. [33] - search for 'nimble' to find a section in all three 'sources'. The Alpha Generation seems to be mostly the work of User :Stevetongson - I'll notify him of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For a start I've run a duplication detector report [34] for Generation and the Pew Research Center website. The two significant matches in our Generation article have now been fixed by turning them into direct quotes. I haven't yet looked into Alpha Generation though. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that everything in Alpha Generation that isn't copy-pasted without attribution from our Generation article (the bulletted section) is copy-pasted from elsewhere (note the bizarre 'referencing' to non-existent ref numbers). Is there any reason why it can't simply be blanked for now, while we sort the mess out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You may be right there. I've put a hat on the article and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 6. This needs wither some major rewriting or deletion. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Deleted as a copyvio of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/generation. Since Wikipedia content is copyrighted, copy/pasting large chunks of text without attribution is a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Backlog notice: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests could use some more admin attention. Regards, Goodraise 21:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Largely due to the overzealous protecting of everything by some admins IMO. Kumioko (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, there's some MediaWiki namespace, some user .js pages (which can't be edited by anyone but that editor, so if they break something, an admin has to step in), some highly visible template pages... yup, good call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, do you remember the last serious outbreak of template vandalism? The first template on the list has 336078 transclusions. bobrayner (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible inappropriate action during an RfA

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'm bringing this to this board for comment - whether or not I am involved as a participant is beside the point. In spite of my knowledge of the RfA process, I am not sure if such an action in an attempt to influence the process is acceptable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. Pointless because nominators are obviously going to be watching the page. And in poor taste for sure. Your response here was appropriate and to the point and best to just ignore the whole thing. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no attempt to influence the process on my part. A greater than usual level of concern has been raised by the community at large about alleged, past inappropriate behaviour by the candidate. This is some way above the usual level of "quibbles" raised in most RFA. Given the notable level of support by 3 highly regarded and influential Admins. it is appropriate that they are aware of the community concerns and were offered the opportunity to say anything, nothing, re-endorse their support etc. My neutral message was not a 3 line whip and short of adding hearts and flowers could not have been more polite. In the interests of full disclosure, I have pursued a determined line of questioning with the candidate. Kudpung has also invested a fair bit of time in this RFA but has been criticised for his oppressive approach towards some comments and for suggesting that a very lengthy oppose rationale should be removed from the RFA and placed elsewhere. If I have breached a policy or guideline please let me know but as far as I know the current RFA process permits cross-examination and that must surely include ensuring that nominators are aware of new background. Leaky Caldron 13:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

While not a violation of anything, to be honest LC, your note is a little pointy. Nominators are bound to be watching the RfA and will be aware of new background, if any. I suggest you just move away from this. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there sure is not a "greater than usual level" of anything...except that Leaky, as I noted on the RFA talkpage, you've taken an increasingly disruptive level of action on that RFA, and I'm surprised by that ... it's not at all what I expected from you dangerouspanda 13:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wish, preferably on my talk page, I would genuinely welcome a note of those contributions which you consider to be disruptive. I have asked a number of questions - all answered. I have contributed to the Username discussion, raised concern about the bullying of the editor who drew attention to the IRC canvassing and, more recently, raised concern about the attempts by some supporters to coerce or disparage the opposes based on the alleged off-wiki vandalism. All of my comments have been polite and within limits. Tell me with which you disagree. Leaky Caldron 13:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whether the comment was designated to influence the RfA or not, the morality of putting such a comment on a nominators talk page is despicable. I'd personally be insulted by such a comment if I nominated someone for adminship. That comment is practically saying, "You should retract your nomination statement as the RfA has taken a turn for the worst and people don't agree with you." Nominators are fully capable of making their own decisions in an RfA. I don't need someone badgering me about the direction of the RfA.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than twisting it to suit your point of view and for the avoidance of doubt, let's be clear precisely what it does say: "As prominent and widely respected Administrators your endorsement of RF candidates is highly influential, as can be seen from several of the supporting !votes. Therefore, in view of the level of concern relating to the past activities of the candidate, it is sufficiently important to ask you to consider whether you wish to comment on whether the candidate still has the confidence indicated in your nomination statement." What I would actually expect is a "don't worry, I continue to fully support my nominee" or, indeed a dismissive nothing at all. I would not expect overly-defensive, "how dare you challenge my judgement, I'm taking this to WP:AN". Leaky Caldron 13:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't exactly quite what happened though, was it, LC? I'm also well aware of the literary device of puffing people up before hitting them below the belt. Fortunately, I'm a Wikipedia Black Belt. The only thing I'm defending here is propriety on RfA, of which you are well aware that I have been one of the pushers for sanity there for years - since long before I even became an admin myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Respectfully", not ""respectfully", you are reading way too much into it. In fact you are simply wrong. I mean't every word, in the order they are provided and with no intended or implied subtext. Little old WP:AGF raises its head again. I suggest you accept the complement as it was intended instead of seeking an ulterior motive. You are not the only one concerned about the RFA process. Leaky Caldron 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that even AGF can have its limits, especially when the issue is anomalous to say the least, and particularly at a process where traditionally all AGF goes, no holds barred, out of the window anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Though unintentional, your comment has several hidden meanings.

1. I do not believe this candidate is a sufficient administrator, and believe you should retract the nomination statement as your statement is causing a lot of support votes to be made. (Can be perceived as trying to sabotage the RfA.)
2. Several incidents have been bright to light about this candidate, and I think you should re-evaluate your position on the nomination statement. (Can be insulting to the nominators.)
3. Please indicate whether you still support the candidate or not. (nominators are likely to watch and would change their stance if they felt the need to. Especially Kudpung and Worm who are usually dead on with nominations and come to trust them to the point that I see no need to evaluate the candidate anymore.)

Cheers—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt - utter tosh. I neither said, implied or solicited those inarticulate ramblings. Please note anyone stopping by here and seeing the above -"I did NOT make those statements at any time, any where". Leaky Caldron 14:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether you meant to do so or not, I agree with Cyberpower that the questions are implied. Once again, my suggestion to you is to drop this. Sooner rather than later. --regentspark (comment) 14:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Drop it? I didn't bring the matter here. What do you want me to do, withdraw the note on the nominator's pages? Leaky Caldron 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct way to drop it is to say something like "I just wanted to bring the concerns of the opposers to the attention of the nominators. I shouldn't have done that because I'm sure the nominators are watching the RfA and can judge things on their own." Withdraw gracefully, so to speak. Defending yourself is a slippery slope you shouldn't want to go down. --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the considerate advice. I'm more than happy to accept guidance when it is put forward in a neutral, non-aggressive, not overly assertive way. Consider it done. It may be a little while, I have to attend to my 4 hour slow roasted brisket. Leaky Caldron 15:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just want it to be clear that LC is probably a victim of his own enthusiasm. What I brought to this board was a question of clarification on a principle. If I had had any intentions of seeking sanctions, I would have taken it to the 'other' admin board. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

IP problem

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.

---

108.220.9.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

87.97.157.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cache (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My talk page topic

I blocked 108 on September 30 for a month for disruptive editing and threats of block evasion. 87 posted the message (linked above) on my talk page. 87 also made this edit to the Cache article. I've blocked 87 for a month, and I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. My purpose in coming here is to see if there's anything more that can be done or whether I should have done something different/less/more.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd submit one or both IP addresses to WP:OP for a proxy check, as I don't often know of people who vandalize Wikipedia from Bulgaria and Texas within a week. Otherwise, get your Whac-a-Mole hammer out. It's gonna be a fun ride, I suspect. --Jayron32 05:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron, I've created two reports at WP:OP, and we'll see what they say. This is not an area I know much about, so I may need more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You may get a more extensive response there, however http://87.97.157.121 indicates it's not your average home IP and very likely a proxy. What gets removed in the edits also suggests it's an anonymising proxy. In this case I'd recommend blocking the proxy for a different period, perhaps six months or a year. These proxy block lengths can be tricky to judge, however both block lengths of 1 month or indefinite are somewhat difficult to justify in this case, the former length in particular. HTH. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Nyttend indefinitely blocked 87 as an anonymizing proxy. I didn't know we were "allowed" to block any IP address indefinitely, but as I said earlier, much of this is still unfamiliar to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask him. It may be better for it to be a long (3+ years) block than indefinite. But you could, you know, ask him why. He doesn't bite. (unless asked to, I suppose). --Jayron32 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite if you insist, but my canned salmon made a good lunch just now, so I'd rather not :-) I thought policy was that we indef-blocked IP addresses that had been shown to be open proxies? Perhaps policy got changed without me noticing, or perhaps I misunderstood it in the first place, or perhaps you're wrong. I don't know which one, but if you can show that policy doesn't support an indef in this case, anyone may feel free to re-block for a definite period of time. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths which states "Open proxies should generally be reported to the WikiProject on open proxies and blocked for the length of time they are likely to remain open on the same IP address, which in most cases is likely to be only a few months. Many open proxies have been blocked indefinitely, but this is no longer considered good practice. A large proportion of indefinitely blocked proxies are no longer open proxies." (bold mine). Even open proxies shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. It has been practice for a while now to essentially never block an IP address indefinitely because no IP address remains in the same state for more than a few years, even at the longest. --Jayron32 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There you go: "no longer considered good practice". Apparently I missed out on the change. ProcseeBot (an extreme example of an admin who rarely makes constructive content contributions!) is issuing blocks of two months to a year, so I'm not sure what's right. I think I'll just ask the operator, Slackr, to adjust the block and add this IP to whatever list the bot checks for blocking. Never mind; he last edited in July. I'll just get Advice (constitutional) from the open proxies project or ask them to do the job. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But what about this ("Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time.")? And, as an aside, aren't we waiting for WP:OP to make a determination as to whether this is an open proxy?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The user declared themselves to be using an open proxy, so I'm not sure we need to wait for that. And Nyttend: don't sweat the small stuff. At my age, I'm starting to miss lots of changes as well. --Jayron32 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't hurt for it to be blocked for the near future, so I don't think that it matters that we wait for a determination. Not sweating; I'm just surprised. I figured that ProcseeBot issued definite-length blocks because it has nothing else to do besides checking proxies, while we human admins had been levying indefinites because we have other things in our lives. I suppose that I could issue a block for precisely 100 years and thus fulfill the letter of the law by blocking for a defined period of time :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for admin closure

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.

---

Please, some uninvolved admin needed to close one RM per Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Multiple requests on one page?. Thank you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin assistance needed

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 have requested multiple times for some edits to be made to Template talk:WikiProject United States without action. Although I can do the edits I cannot implement them and my RFA showed that I am not trusted to do them so I need someone with admin rights to do the requested changes. I will not do all the work so that an admin can just do a lazy copy and paste. If you don't want me to have access to implement them that's fine but I'm not going to do all the work. The fact remains though these edits need to be done so I need an admin who doesn't mind getting their hands a little dirty to make these changes to the template or reduce the templates protection level to semi protected so I can do it. Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody can know exactly what you want unless you do the work. Please remember that a negative RFA doesn't mean that we distrust you to make this kind of edit. Until you put the code in the sandbox or provide a link to another page where you've put it, there's no way to fulfill your request. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll echo Nyttend on this, and the notes that several people have made on the Template talk page you noted: There are two issues here: first, since no one here is a mindreader, no one can actually know what changes you wish to see made, so make them in the sandbox, and we'll copy-paste them over. Second, that your failed RFA seems to have affected the attitude you have towards working positively at Wikipedia. That you failed an RFA is unfortunate, but it doesn't give you the right to make unreasonable demands upon other editors. Yeah, it sucks that you're RFA failed. But that doesn't mean you need to take the "I failed an RFA so I'm not trusted to be helpful" attitude. That's not what a failed RFA means, and if that is the attitude you're going to take, I'm not sure we need any more of that sort of thing around Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your RFA. I'm sorry that it failed but having an obvious chip on your shoulder towards those of us that have managed to pass is not the way forward. We don't take assignments any more than you do. We also don't get paid any more than you do. You are only being asked to actually present specific edits to be made, which is all that is expected from any user making such requests. If making some vague point about why you failed at RFA is more important to you than those edits that is your problem. This may be a good time to re-examine your priorities. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I explained the edits needed. The edits I am requesting are really easy or should be for someone who has the technical knowledge needed to be an admin. My RFA absolutely did reflect the communities lack of trust in my edits. There is really no other way to interpret it. I can live with that but that comes with a result and that result is that I am no longer willing to do those things that I used to that are admin related. If I am not trusted to be an admin then I should not be doing those things, period. Yes I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about it. Your right, after 6 years and several hundred thousand edits and countless things I have done and contributed too I am not popular enough to be an admin. Yeah that hurts but I am still editing. I just don't think I need to be doing admin related tasks like editing protected templates. If that means the edits don't get done then I guess that's the way it will have to be until someone with the necessary rights is willing to do it. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge of template coding is not required of admins. We only need to be able to see what is being requested from people who, like you, are obviously (1) knowledgeable and (2) editing in good faith. I know that you're trustworthy enough to improve this template; the sole problem is that you're not providing the code. Please remember that we make this requirement of everyone, including people who haven't gone through RFA. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to provide the code. If I said Article X needs an infobox there wouldn't be a requirement for me to do it in the sandbox first. Same thing here. The template needs some changes and I have explained what those changes are, I cannot do them so I have told those that can what to do. I shouldn't need to spell it out. I don't have anything against you or any of the other admins but the system is broken. If untrusted editors need to make edits for trusted ones to implement because the trusted ones don't know how, then that's a problem. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Requesting attention for abortion case watchlist notice request

I'd like to request some attention for MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. I don't know what's supposed to happen there, but a total lack of feedback for over a week, as subsequent requests are processed, doesn't seem like it. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What is going on with this?

You there, admin. Yes, you. Can you please explain what we should be doing to get some response on this issue? "No" would be better than silence. Do we have to pick an admin and post on their talk page? Homunq (࿓) 16:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for people willing to close abortion discussion

We need three admins who are prepared to close the latest abortion naming RFC at the start of November. To make sure we make progress the admins concerned will need to be prepared to close the discussion as a vote (if that is agreed) and/or to close potentially tight discussions with a consensus (rather than no consensus) in a controversial topic area.

The reward for this challenge is to try and end a dispute that has been going on for the better part of two years :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Of note I see no particular reason that the closers have to be admins, but non-admin potential closers should ask on the talk page for objections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading you right, and you are asking for them to find a consensus and not consider "no consensus", that would be problematic. You can't close a discussion if it really is no consensus by forcing a consensus, or else it becomes a supervote. Closers must be free to draw whatever conclusion the situation merits, even if it is inconvenient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not really a full characterization. If you look at the RFC and the voting-related proposal on its talk page, you'll see that what's being suggested is that the core conclusion of the RFC be evaluated by the usual judgment of consensus, and if that conclusion has consensus, then voting mechanics be used to decide among the options for how that conclusion should be implemented, because if the conclusion does have consensus, then one of the options outlined should be carried out, and the determination of which one should not be vulnerable to a reading of no consensus. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear I don't want to force a consensus result (above and beyond the voting proposal). What I wanted to request is an admin who is prepared to close something which doesn't reach a supermajority as a consensus - if there actually is one.

If it is literally a toss up between the arguments, and we don't agree a vote, then it should be closed as no-consensus.

Sorry for being unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock is backlogged

We got one request pending since September 19. T. Canens (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That is bad :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about the request I think you are, it is most likely because the wrote a novel-length unblock request. Most block appeals do not require several thousand words of explanation. At a glance it looks like a long examination of whether or not their actions meet the technical definition of sockpuppetry. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would have tackled it myself, but it was my block in the first place, so... T. Canens (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting off that easy, I just read the whole thing and I find it somewhat compelling. I have therefore placed it on hold to be discussed with the blocking admin. Any other uninvolved parties are also free to comment at User talk:ArkRe. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've not looked at it, so this is purely a procedural question without reflection on this specific case. Is there anything wrong with the blocking admin accepting an unblock request? I can see the problems that would result if I blocked someone and then declined that person's unblock request, but what about the opposite? Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not unless the admin blocked in order to be the one to unblock later, or it was the result of arbitration enforcement, or something similar. A standard discretionary block by an admin suggests at least as much discretion to unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin can unblock based on a request, but not decline an unblock. (Patrolling Category:Requests for unblock is one of my usual haunts when actually using my admin account :-) ) dangerouspanda 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Need an admin to post an item on ITN

Could an uninvolved admin post Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Hildegard_of_Bingen_and_John_of_Avila_named_Doctors_of_the_Church on the ITN template? I'd have done it myself, but I have voted in the discussion. There's a general consensus that the blurb is ready for posting, but it's sliding down the list, and I think no one has seen it. Thanks! --Jayron32 19:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask User:HJ Mitchell, he was pretty active at ITN last time him and I spoke. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nick Grimshaw

Could someone please look at Nick Grimshaw and provide assistance? User:Tgeairn has requested some help, apparently there is some vandalism going on? Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest instance reverted and page semi-protected for a week. For what it's worth, RfPP is thataway... Yunshui 雲‍水 07:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. As an aside, the request had been at RFPP for nearly 6 hours at the time I asked Gryffindor if he could take a look. Not normally a critical issue, but it is a BLP. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of a backlog on WP:RFPP. If you've got a few minutes, it'd be great if you could handle a few. I'd do some more, but I'm shooting out in a few minutes. — Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for people willing to close abortion discussion

We need three admins who are prepared to close the latest abortion naming RFC at the start of November. To make sure we make progress the admins concerned will need to be prepared to close the discussion as a vote (if that is agreed) and/or to close potentially tight discussions with a consensus (rather than no consensus) in a controversial topic area.

The reward for this challenge is to try and end a dispute that has been going on for the better part of two years :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Of note I see no particular reason that the closers have to be admins, but non-admin potential closers should ask on the talk page for objections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading you right, and you are asking for them to find a consensus and not consider "no consensus", that would be problematic. You can't close a discussion if it really is no consensus by forcing a consensus, or else it becomes a supervote. Closers must be free to draw whatever conclusion the situation merits, even if it is inconvenient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not really a full characterization. If you look at the RFC and the voting-related proposal on its talk page, you'll see that what's being suggested is that the core conclusion of the RFC be evaluated by the usual judgment of consensus, and if that conclusion has consensus, then voting mechanics be used to decide among the options for how that conclusion should be implemented, because if the conclusion does have consensus, then one of the options outlined should be carried out, and the determination of which one should not be vulnerable to a reading of no consensus. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear I don't want to force a consensus result (above and beyond the voting proposal). What I wanted to request is an admin who is prepared to close something which doesn't reach a supermajority as a consensus - if there actually is one.

If it is literally a toss up between the arguments, and we don't agree a vote, then it should be closed as no-consensus.

Sorry for being unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute with admin User:Hu12

Recently, I blocked User:76.189.121.57 over a matter that was quickly resolved and I unblocked - it had been a dispute borne out of frustration, with no malice (and I've since gone on to try to help 76.189.121.57 with the relevant content issue). 76.189.121.57 subsequently blanked User talk:76.189.121.57, which is fine according to WP:REMOVED, which says...

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." (emphasis original)

User:Hu12, an admin since 2007, reverted that removal. Both I and 76.189.121.57 pointed out on his talk page that such removal is allowed, 76.189.121.57 provided WP:REMOVED as evidence, and I reinstated the blanked version. Hu12 refused to accept that, and quoted some policy from Simple Wikipedia to support his claim that IPs aren't covered by WP:USER or by WP:User pages and are not allowed to blank their talk pages (and even had it been en.wikipedia policy, it did not support his claim anyway).

He then went on to reinstate the blanked content, this time as an archive, making out that he was extending leeway that an unregistered user would not normally enjoy. Archives are not compulsory, and he had no right to try to force 76.189.121.57 to keep the material in an archive. 76.189.121.57 reverted the archive link from his talk page and I deleted the archive.

User:Barek stepped in to point out to Hu12 that he was wrong, but he simply will not accept it. And apparently it's my behaviour that's all wrong because I told him to "stop fucking about" with 76.189.121.57's talk page. He also claimed that I attributed malice to his creation of the archive, which I certainly did not do - I believe he did it out of poor understanding of current policy and practice, not out of malice. He also threw in the little gem "Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation", which people who know me will easily be able to dismiss.

My view is that Hu12 was wrong about policy, and wrong to claim that an unregistered user is not allowed to blank stale messages from their talk page. Hu12 was wrong to try to force the IP to keep the stale messages (including wrong to try to force an archive to be kept), wrong to quote Simple Wikipedia policy to support his claim (policy which did not support it anyway), and wrong to refuse to listen to three other editors (including 2 admins).

Hu12 is now refusing to discuss the matter further and considers it closed and that the only bad behaviour is mine - but I don't think it can be closed when three of us think he was wrong about policy and he refuses to consider our opinions.

I'm happy to admit to frustration and a little anger, but in my view Hu12 was behaving arrogantly by insisting he was right (without providing valid policy to support his claims) and by refusing to consider that the three people in opposition to him might have been right.

So, I'd appreciate a clarification of who is right and who is wrong here, and who, if anyone, behaved badly as an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to say the exchange can be found at User talk:Hu12#User talk:76.189.121.57 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:REMOVED is quite clear on the matter and I'd be interested in hearing Hu12's rationale. GiantSnowman 11:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Although I understand your frustration, Boing! said Zebedee, I see from Hu12 one single blanking, and one single attempt to create an archive. And that all prompted you to tell Hu12 to 'stop fucking about', and results in an escalation to this AN-thread? Civility might have brought you somewhere, but don't be surprised that (perceived!) incivility certainly is not going to get anyone anywhere. This is an utter non-issue, which should have been handled differently and is certainly not a situation that needs this escalation, but it needs people to drop the stick. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• That's incorrect -- the "stop fucking about" came after a series of WP:IDHT posts by Hu12. Boing! explained the policy and provided links to applicable policies, and Hu12 wasn't being responsive. Nobody Ent 11:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• When an admin clearly does not understand current Wikipedia policy and refuses to listen when told, instead making his own unsupported pronouncements and acting on them, I think he needs to be informed about the policy and we need to be reassured that he will follow it in future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hu12 is incorrect. Nobody Ent 11:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, I also meant to point out that there is further related dialog at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Thank you - my memory is shot this morning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Unquestionably, an IP can remove block notice info once the block has expired or been lifted. The only reason we force all editors to keep active block notices and related posts is for the convenience of a reviewing admin. WP:IDHT going on here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'd say Hu12 is clearly mistaken, for the reasons discussed. However, I also don't see anything here that would require admin actions or sanctions aimed at any of the involved parties. Can we chalk it up to experience and move on? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What started as a minor cockup by Hu12 has rapidly become a gigantic fuckup by Hu12. I think we'd all love to "chalk it up to experience and move on", but so far, Hu12's actions and responses are preventing that dangerouspanda 12:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for any sanctions, just for Hu12 to be informed by the admin community of correct policy and to understand it - he won't listen to me or Barek, but he needs to listen to someone. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is the point. He needs to say "Oh, ok." That is all. If he maintains the same position that an IP can't delete material on their talk page, then that would show the problem still exists. The problem isn't this one talk page, it is the misunderstanding of policy. Discussing it here is a way to demonstrate a consensus on the reading of the policy, and common courtesy dictates Hu12 simply acknowledge the consensus. An apology isn't required, just an acknowledgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hu12 hasn't edited since before the ANI notice, so presumably is unaware of this discussion - I agree with Dennis; if, on reading the thread, he agree that he made a mistake (we all do!), then we're done here. If more IDHTing ensues, then we may have a problem, but I can't see Hu12 disagreeing with the clear consensus on polity interpretation above. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• This seems like one of those signature Wikipedia arguments, over something incredibly trivial and minor in the grand scheme of things, but which quickly escalates to shenanigans and anger. I know Hu12 to be a reasonable editor and admin, so I reserve judgement until they comment... but I don't see anything that would justify their position. I hope that this can be resolved with a simple trout. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I do have to ask, though - what exactly was the problem with making an archive of the warnings? Honestly, unless someone knows they're there, why would it matter? If someone needs to dig back into the IP's history, the note in the log that says "Archiving warnings/notices to archive" would provide whatever link is required. I agree that this was handled poorly by Hu12, but I don't see why that would not have been a perfectly acceptable middle ground. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor didn't want it, and had made it clear he simply wanted to blank the stale messages - Hu12's take on policy was simply wrong, and no middle ground was needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ultraexactzz, I just wanted to answer your question since it was my talk page that Hu12 archived. I'm glad you asked. The reason why Hu12's archiving my talk page was a problem is because (1) Hu12 never discussed it with me, (2) I didn't want an archive, and (3) most importantly, archiving is "optional" per WP:REMOVED, not required; it most certainly cannot be forced upon a user. Therefore, Hu12 clearly violated the guidelines. And my rights. Hu12's choosing a "middle ground" for me, especially without talking to me about it first, was not an option. Had Hu12 discussed the archiving option with me first, and I agreed, then it would have been a legitimate middle ground. If there is a guideline that allows an administrator to force an archive onto another editor, please show us. If I'm mistaken, I'll certainly apologize. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any guideline that would let an admin compel archival of a talk page, IP or otherwise. My concern was that it seemed like a minor thing to fight over, in the scheme of things. But your position, on the principle of the thing, pretty clearly explains where you're coming from. And you're not wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness to Hu12, it should be pointed out that WP:REMOVE is a subsection of the guideline WP:User pages (not a policy as has been stated several times in this thread). That said, it is a broadly accepted guideline.

I hold a great deal of respect for both admins involved, so I find this whole debate troubling on multiple levels. I do agree that Hu12 was mistaken in his interpretation of the guideline, and would like to see his reply here to explain his position. I also feel that Boing! said Zebedee over-reacted with his statement on Hu12's talk page (to which Hu12 also over-reacted, which just escallated the whole thing further).

In the end, I believe that this can best be resolved by both parties acknowledging their missteps, and a round of trouting for everyone involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, where I come from saying "Stop fucking around" isn't a big deal, and if you can't handle straight-talking like that you shouldn't be an admin. But if it helps, I'm happy to say I'm sorry if I offended Hu12's sensitivities. And this isn't about trouts - that's something I think is quite silly really. All we need, I think, is for Hu12 to accept the consensus on policy regarding IP editors removing stuff from their Talk page. I don't want apologies, I don't want trouts, and I don't want sanctions - I just want to know it's not going to happen again to other IP users. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and though it might be a guideline, it says "Policy does not prohibit...", and the only way to counter that is to show policy that does prohibit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I treat WP:REMOVED like policy, partly because of what Boing! said, and partly because of the strength of its language ("A number of important matters may not be removed by the user") (bolding in original).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am the user whose talk page was unblanked and archived by Hu12. My comments on this incident are here. I didn't want to clog up this discussion. I would just like Hu12 to acknowledge that IPs are allowed to clear their own talk page and are not required to archive, per WP:REMOVED and the other guidelines that were presented. I don't want other editors to go through the same thing. Thanks. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 16:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention that I noticed a short time ago that Hu12 made more disparaging comments about me on his talk page, regarding my editing history, that are not only completely out-of-context but have nothing to do with the issue being discussed (talk page blanking and archiving). As I indicated to Hu12 yesterday, I feel like their behavior towards me is on the verge of harassment. I asked them yesterday to please stop. I feel like I am being bullied because I am an IP. I just posted this response to Hu12 and hope they will not post any more disparaging and misleading comments about me. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that Boing! said Zebedee has been quite articulate with his request that Hu12 just acknoweldge his mistake, if that is what the consensus here seems to be pointing to and we all move on. I think it is quite important that IPs be treated with equal respect as registered users if the project really wants to be edited by anybody. This is coming from a former longtime IP editor, who still goes back to being an IP quite abit. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The wording "or unregistered users" was actually added to WP:USER originally as "and anonymous users" back in 2008 , after my request for clarification /consensus at Village pump (policy) for it. Exceptions can sometimes apply to content guidelines, and in this case, a recently blocked user, with a history of blanking article space content, blanking Talk-page content, twice along with all of the other stuff which ultimatly lead to 76.189.121.57 being blocked. My reverting once in what outwardly appeared to be continued blanking straight after a block, would seem reasonable and not out of process. Since none of my edits were in violation, my only point on my talk page was to point out that the small mention in a subsection of WP:USER, "or unregistered users", doesn't apply to WP:USER as a whole. Both the IP and Boing! clearly mistook my statements as implying that "unregistered users" are not users, which wasn't what i ment. Broader consensus is either needed, or an explicit section covering IP's(users) similarly to what was done over at Simple.Wikipedia. Perhaps, I could have clarified and worded those things better, however its no excuse for Boings! behavior;

• "Listen up Hu12, if you don't stop fucking around with other user's talk pages ... you're going to find yourself the subject of an ANI report."

What needs to be adressed here is Boing!'s blatantly breached civility, Failing to assume my single revert as good faith, attributed malice to my attempting to provide a new IP with an archive, and repeatedly threatened, bullied and harassed are unacceptable policy breaches and this meritless AN/I report is prima facie evidence of that--Hu12 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please stop lying about my having attributed malice to your creating of the archive page - all I have ever done is opined that you were mistaken. And it's not the fact that you only did it once that's the problem here (although I would argue that putting it back as an archive means you actually effectively unblanked it twice), it is the attitude you have displayed in response to having your actions contested, and your lack of respect for IP editors.
• "...recently blocked user, with a history of blanking article space content, blanking Talk-page content, twice along with all of the other stuff which ultimatly lead to 76.189.121.57 being blocked" is a gross misrepresentation of 76's behaviour here. There was only one incident of note, it was minor and borne out of well-meaning frustration. Messages relating to the dispute in question (about the vocal range of singers), in which I believe 76 is actually fully in the right, is all that was on the talk page. Continuing to insist that 76 requires special treatment as a troublemaker is disgraceful, especially as it is the blocking admin who is contesting your misreading of the issue - few admins are so arrogant as to ignore the opinions of the one who was actually involved in the issue. And trying to divert this into an attack on *my* behaviour? Well, it doesn't really bother me because I have a thick skin and no real ego (I don't even cry when people say "fuck" to me), but I think it says a lot about you - you're clearly a well-respected editor and admin (respected by people I in turn respect), and your behaviour in this case (not the initial mistake, but your response to having it questioned), makes me sad more than anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

When an admin clearly does not understand current Wikipedia policy and refuses to listen when told, instead making his own unsupported pronouncements and acting on them it rekindles concern that tools are too easy to get and too difficult to remove. Leaky Caldron 22:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning removing the bit, would certainly be going to extremes. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My tongue in cheek comment was intended to highlight the following. I accept that no Admin can be expected to know every nuance of every policy. However, when you are told, clearly and plainly and referred to the policy but still carry on regardless, it is time to consider what more serious damage they are capable of doing and whether they should be considering standing again so that the community can reaffirm confidence in them. Leaky Caldron 22:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

From what Boing has said above, it appears he does not attribute it to malice, just what he believes is a misunderstanding of policy that you will not accept. This [35] is not uncivil. Just because someone uses the word "fuck" or derivatives doesn't mean they are uncivil (for example, replace "fucking" with "messing" then read it again). The comment is strongly worded. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed ... there's no planet in our system (now that Pluto is gone) where "quit fucking around" is a violation of WP:CIVIL - unless Boing was actually accusing Hu12 of being unfaithful to their sexual partner, which based on the rest of the sentence does not seem to be the case. dangerouspanda 22:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Even though almost every editor in this discussion has said that IPs have every right to blank their own talk page per the various guidelines, and none have said they don't, Hu12 continues refusing to acknowledge this. Instead, they continue to give invalid excuses as to why their actions were somehow justified.

And even though I asked Hu12 multiple times in his talk page to please stop trying to disparage my reputation by posting irrelevant misrepresentations of my editing history, they have done it yet again by copying and pasting their last round of insulting accusations on their talk page into this discussion. Hu12 also claims that "exceptions" exist for their violation of the applicable guidelines, but fails to present any proof. As I indicated earlier, I posted this response regarding their negative claims about me.

It is almost unbelievable to me that Hu12 is attempting to turn this into a false discussion about Boing's behavior, when in fact the overriding problem was, and continues to be, their own intransigence and refusal to accept their mistakes. Sadly, this is perhaps a clear indication that Hu12 will continue to do the same thing in the future with other unregistered users, thus violating their rights to clear their own talk pages and to not have archiving forced upon them. How many more editors, and particuarly administrators, will it take for Hu12 to accept that what he did was wrong and should never be done again? --76.189.121.57 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I find it very troubling that lately many users seem to have decided that it is ok to treat IP users like unwelcome scum not worthy of the respect we extend to anyone who chooses to register an account. It is especially troubling when experineced user or in this ase a very experienced administrator seem to just assume it s ok to treat IP users like crap. I also find it ridiculous that when someone is acting the fool and they are told to stop fucking around that they will turn and try to make that the issue. You shouldn't be fucking around with other user's users talk pages unless there is a very good reason, which there obviously is not in this case. No administrator should feel that they have free reign to make up policies and treat IP users like shit, so yeah, quit fucking around and admit you made a mistake already. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all of that, but I want to add that I find it hilarious that this is being done primarily by users with completely made up user names, who aren't even exposing so much as an IP address for identity. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My IP is 86.173.197.33, just for the record ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, That's Wholey and entirely wrong. I've always been clear when it comes to IP/anons;

• "...there is a person editing behind the IP and he/she deserves all the consideration and respect as any other user..." --Hu12 31 March 2008

Coincidently, I actualy did, in fact, play a small part in "making up" that guideline, which was added folowing that discussion. Reverting one instance of blanking is not "fucking around with other user's talk pages". --Hu12 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In this instance, your words from four and half years ago unfortunately do not even come close to matching your actions. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Great point, Kerfuffler. I would remind those with made-up user names who are mistreating IPs that per WP:URIP2, "You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Wikipedia your IP address became hidden behind a user name. Unregistered users are often called anonymous editors. In fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you that are more anonymous." I hope they will read all of WP:HUMAN.

And Hu12, it's a shame after all this discussion that you as an administrator still refuse to accept responsibility for your actions and, more importantly, continue to drastically downplay what you did. This matter is not at all just about you "reverting one instance of blanking", as you keep insisting. It is about your ongoing refusal to listen to reason, particularly from numerous other administrators. You not only unblanked an IP's talk page in violation of a clear guideline, you continued to ignore the mounds of evidence, and then forced an archive on someone even though the guidelines clearly say that a user has the right not to have one. And you did it without even the courtesy of discussing the matter with the user. And on top of all that, you went out of your way to disparage the IP by repeatedly making irrelevant misrepresentations about their editing history. So, yes, you did in fact "fuck around" with the talk page. And the IP. Is any of this proper behavior for an administrator? --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Archived IP talk pages

If an admin or bot creates an IP talk page archive, it should be left alone. It does not matter what the IPs want. We have a few thousand archived IP talk pages (like this) where they weren't asked (nor do we care what they think) and the pages were archived anyway. We even have a bot which has been doing the job every six months under test. Unlike a standard user account, if that IP editor messes with that archive, I would not recognize OWNTALK or any other TPG guideline as allowing them any propriety whatsoever over an archive. I would not honor some school kid vandal's request to delete IP talk archives so I don't see that any IP editor has any such freedom. Hu12's creation of the archive was something that has been considered standard practice for some time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice. You just equated every IP editor with some school kid vandal. Did Beeblebrox's plea above mean nothing? --Malerooster (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

IP editors share talk space along with those vandals which is why we can't discern between them...you've misread or misunderstood. And no, that statement has nothing to do with the point I'm raising here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving has always been considered standard practice, Malerooster.--Hu12 (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I will assume good faith and assume I missunderstood you both. My only point would be that it seems people have become very jadded about IP editors and I really wish people would treat them with equal respect as "regular" signed in account holders, thats all. Not saying you aren't, just saying outloud. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"IP editors share talk space along with those vandals which is why we can't discern between them" is not applicable in this case - it's blatantly obvious that this is not a vandal and that the comments on the talk page were entirely related to the one editor personally -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• BH, if I'm reading you right, then the IP can remove old stuff off the talk page, but not the archive of the talk page? If this is the case, it doesn't seem to be common knowledge, perhaps needing clarification at the policy page. I assume there was a discussion this somewhere to reach this consensus. If you have a diff, that would be swell. I've never ran across an IP archive to even consider the idea, and I assume the same is true of others here. If there isn't an existing consensus to this effect at a proper forum, then that might need bringing up in a larger discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

IP's auch as "Libs" aka User_talk:156.34.142.110 have been archiving for years, even has Barnstars (even one from me). Unfortunatly Libs had to get an actual account Wiki libs (talk · contribs). Hasn't been active in a while.--Hu12 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Common practice and common sense will apply here and it may need to be discussed elsewhere also for clarification. Those of us who have been vandal-fighters for some time know this is standard practice. I'd bet Boing would also affirm this. Please note that I'm not trying to raise an exception or criticize anyone's behavior but the point I'm raising here is indeed a valid defense for one of Hu12's actions and I would suggest in the future that this be an understood compromise between admins. Common sense applies where IPs aren't necessarily the same editor so if they touch an archive, it may be considered refactoring...so, no they don't own it. The talk space first and foremost belongs to the community for its purposes, From WP:UP#OWN, "However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." That alone would trump any IP from mangling an archive as it defeats the purpose.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am always very suspicious when people say that something is "common practice". I'm even more suspicious when they say it's "common sense", especially when that common sense is not concordant with actually expressed guidelines. IP editors have every right to edit their archives, blank their talk page, whatever. If we allow IP editing, we must allow it on as equal a level as possible, with only the narrowest restrictions to prevent serious damage (such as the requirement that an editor have an account to create a page). If some people want to go about making IP editors a lower class without control over their talk pages, then they should instead be campaigning to remove the right to edit under an IP address. I don't know how you can call an editor editing a page that they have every right (in the sense of the rights granted by Wikpedia policies) "mangling". Yes, people don't own their own talk pages...but that in no way implies that the community can force someone to have or not have archives. This is, essentially, no different than the fact that we can't force someone with a named account to have archives (instead of just blanking). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"IP editors have every right to edit their archives, blank their talk page, whatever." No, they don't. IPs do not have the same rights and may not blank in the same way...for example, they are not allowed to remove Shared IP notices. As you can see, there are indeed differences. As for mangling, this is clear that I'm describing an IP user going back in on archives that they didn't contribute to and blanking, refactoring or vandalizing what they didn't write. I consider that would trump OWNTALK. And yes, if this community decides that school IPs or shared IP's will have archives then that would happen. No one is forcing an editor to do anything here...any IP editors that came along later would have no right to touch an archive that they never contributed to. Kind of funny that a parallel discussion about choosing to blank old messages or archive them on IP talk pages has been going on...without any input from any IPs and we've had a bot that does it for some time without anyone questioning the "forcing" of archives on IPs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, you really need to educate yourself on What an unregistered user can't do, which begins by saying, "As a general rule, unregistered users can do everything that registered users can. Unregistered users may edit articles, participate in talk page discussions, contribute to policy proposals and do (almost) everything else that a registered user can do." Please never forget that you are an IP too. In fact BH, you're far more anonymous than me because everyone can see my IP address, but all you have is a fake user name. ;) Registered users are great, as long as they don't treat unregistered users as second-class citizens. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That essay is not universally accepted. I reject it, so do many others. I'm arguing against Berean Hunter, I'm asking for clarification as the issue isn't as "intuitive" as it might seem so someone who doesn't do vandal fighting. Archives is one thing, but removing expired notices from the TALK page is another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I note that all of the archived IP talk pages have the header which reads "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Those of us who have been vandal-fighters for some time know this is standard practice. I'd bet Boing would also affirm this": No, in the case of an editor who is not a vandal, and where the entire talk page contents clearly apply to the one individual, I would not affirm that.
• "they are not allowed to remove Shared IP notices": Yes, there are some things, for good reason, which are different - but none of those applies in this case. The aim is to treat unregistered and registered editors equally as far as practical.
• "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.": That's not IP specific, it comes from the archive page template. You can find it on my archives, for example, because I put it there. What it means is that people cannot *edit* the archive, it does not mean that *I* cannot delete my archives. It also does not mean that a non-admin cannot request deletion of their own archives via CSD:U1 (providing they were not created by a move from their talk page, which would lose the history) - I have fulfilled such requests a number of times.
• "Common sense": The only example I can think of in which common sense would require us to refuse to delete an IP talk archive or insist on keeping IP talk page comments is when the content includes important documentary evidence of vandalism or other misbehaviour related to multiple users of the IP address, and which needs to be kept current for some reason (remember, it's all in the talk page history for all time, if needed). That is absolutely not the case here - all the talk page contained was a few messages regarding a minor incident that led to a block of a few hours - and it was an incident that arose out of a bit of frustration from an editor who is clearly a positive contributor with clearly good intentions. As an admin, I'm here to support and assist such people, especially against abuse by other admins -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Since we're on the topic perhaps some clarification is needed regarding the deletion of archived talkpages, such as User talk:76.189.121.57/Archive 1. The rational given was CSD#G6, however even if the intention was intended to be deleted as Author requests deletion (G7) it states.." this does not apply to user talk pages" or "talk archives". --Hu12 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where it prohibits the deletion of talk page archives at either WP:CSD#G7 or Wikipedia:DELTALK. If you can be more specific, I'll be happy to consider the possibility that I am mistaken. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I would like to note that I do not support Hu12's actions, nor Berean Hunter's assertion about IP talk page archives. Silverseren^C 06:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter, I strongly suggest that you read WP:HUMAN, including WP:URIP2. Your comments, "It does not matter what the IPs want" and "nor do we care what they think", and your equating IPs to "school kid vandal's" (sp), are all perfect examples of what Beeblebrox, Kerfuffler and others so eloquently alluded to regarding the mistreatment and trivialization of unregistered users. You also referred to those with accounts as "standard" users", as if unregistered users are a lower class. Again, I will quote from WP:URIP2: "You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Wikipedia your IP address became hidden behind a user name. Unregistered users are often called anonymous editors. In fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you that are more anonymous."

And for the record, the issue in this situation did not involve me asking to have my archive deleted. The archive was created and forced upon me by Hu12. I then found out, after-the-fact, that another administrator deleted it, which I was grateful for. If someone forces something on a user that Wikipedia guidelines say the user may choose not to have, then an administrator can delete it.

Making a blanket statement that Hu12's forcing of an archive on IPs "has been considered standard practice for some time" is disturbing. It may be appropriate for those who are blatantly disrupting the project or for talk pages that have had no activity for a long time, but I am not one of those "school kid vandals" that you referred to IPs as, and the content I removed from my talk page was obviously mine. Guidelines are what matter; not what you or anyone else believe to be "standard practice". If a particular process is supported by guidelines, that's fine. WP:REMOVED says I can clear my contents. So I did. It also says I do not have to archive. So I didn't. But Hu12 came along, ignored the "rules" and unblanked my page, then created an archive.

Lastly, the fact that you admit you would simply ignore WP:OWNTALK and all other related guidelines, thereby blatantly violating an IP's rights, completely discredits your entire argument. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, that silly little essay has no teeth. IPs are not humans, they are addresses. You are no more 76.189.121.57 than I am my phone number. I've been threatening to start a counter essay, and it appears the time is right. There are differences in IPs and registered users. We treat each edit the same, but we don't treat a single registered user the same as an address that can be used by hundreds of people at the same time, because it ISN'T a human. This is why IPs can't vote at RfA and have very limited access to ArbCom. Unlike a registered user, there is no history or accountability that can tie the HUMAN to most IPs. The question is simply, "what is the consensus as to where do we draw the line?". Limiting access to talk page archives does make a degree of sense, since most IPs are dynamic, so the messages were not meant for THEM, but for that address. I am still not aware that there is a consensus to this affect, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Most IPs are dynamic means some are not; given evidence a particular IP is static (e.g. 76's), there's no reason to treat their talk pages differently than that of a registered user. Nobody Ent 12:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I partly agree about that essay, but I think the main problem with it is that is uses terminology badly - the idea it means to get across is that IP editors are human too, not that their IP addresses are human. If you read it all as "unregistered editor" wherever it says "IP", it makes more sense. The crux of the issue here is the treatment of an IP editor/unregistered editor, not the treatment of their IP address. In this case, it is blatantly obvious that the IP address represented only one editor, that the contents of the talk page related to only that editor, and that it was the same editor who wanted the page blanked - in the circumstances, there was no relevant difference between this specific unregistered editor and a registered editor, there should have been no controversy whatsoever, and the IP editor should have been treated as a human in the spirit of that essay just the same as any registered editor. (Also, I haven't looked for policy/guidelines support for this, but on many occasions I've seen current users of IP addresses told they're free to blank old messages that were addressed to previous users of the address too).

  As an aside, I think it is very easy for people who are mainly active in vandalism and disruption to focus too much on aspects of policy aimed at vandalism and disruption, and sometimes fail to appreciate that polices aimed at IP vandalism should not be seen as blanket polices aimed at all IP editors - I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I think it does contribute to the occasional default assumption that an IP editor who, say, has had a block is a troublemaker, when the same assumption would not be made of a registered editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:IPs are not human - It was a bit rushed and could use some serious cleanup and organizing, but it is a start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• It saddens me greatly to see so many good contributors with years of productive, civil experience fail the RFA process for no reason but political bullshit - and we have put the tools in the hand of what I read to be an absolutely "My way or the high way" editor. The fact of the matter is that there is no significant breach of any policy I've read (I claim to have read them all), and this whole thing could have been chalked up to a minor mistake, with an apology easily sufficing for this entire discussion. The only thing left is to see if User:Hu12 will nut up and admit his mistake. I wouldn't judge for a simple lapse on a single call, but his continued resistance to input is troubling. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 17:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, you are totally misinterpreting what that page is saying. Where it refers to IPs, it is clearly talking about IP/unregistered users, not IP addresses. In fact, the page uses the two terms interchangably. So the entire premise of your response is invalid. The bottom line is that all editors are human beings. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This has turned into a very long discussion and seems to have wandered away from the initial purpose. To get back to that, what was the point of forcing archiving on a particualr user? Why would that ever be a productive, useful idea? It seems more like something that was done just because the user has no respect for IP users, which is despicable any way you slice it. I am very much is support of anyone who plans to edit here in the long term registering an account, but they don't have to if they don't want to, and that they don't want to is not a reason to treat them like shit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning during creating a new Page Liberty Reserve

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Liberty Reserve regarding One friend of mine start a PTC (Pay to Click). He told me that what he earn he can withdraw his money from Liberty Reserve Bank, I ask him what kind of bank is it, He further told me that it is an online funds transferring system.

I need more info about it, When I search it through Wikipedia, There was no related topic. When I think of creating a new Article about Liberty Reserve, this message appear to me,

A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 23:43, 26 April 2011 Athaenara (talk. The thread is "Liberty Reserve".The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. --Irfan Shehzad 16:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I will be your kindness if you guide me so in future I may became careful. Thanks in anticipation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan shehzad (talk • contribs)

I suggest that you follow the articles for creation process to create a draft article, then submit it for review by other users.--ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unable to access Wikimarkup (symbols, diacritics, Latin, etc.)

I have to raise this here because it is seriously impacting my editing abilities and my ability to sign any comments I make. Over the last week to two weeks, at least, I have been unable to access wikimarkup (with symbols, diacritics, Latin, etc.) I left some stuff unsigned hoping the Sign-bot would do it but of course it didn't. It isn't the computers, because it's like this in Internet rental places, at public libraries, etc. Most pages do not automatically have the wikimarkup where it used to be. Some do, most do not. Just thought I'd let you know. There is a note that says "View hidden categories on this page" but that has nothing to do with this problem. Unable to sign, so .... User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

They moved it from the bottom of the edit window to the top; see "Special characters". It might require Javascript to work though. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I am OK now. Can't speak for everyone. Quis separabit? 19:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Curious, since you could type @, why couldn't you type ~? Is your ~ key broken? Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your curiosity (and snarkiness) surprise me -- there are "@" symbols on library keyboards (reread my comment), but not "~" symbols, to the best of my knowledge, and I am looking down on one at this second. Quis separabit? 17:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

How odd; every computer keyboard that I can remember using had a ~ key, located just left of the 1 key at the top left corner. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I never noticed it because I never used it. No problem admitting that. Anyway, was I supposed to go on typing "~" four times every time I needed to sign something on Wikipedia for the rest of my days? And what about everything else in the markup?? Quis separabit? 18:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I still see a notification at the bottom of the edit window that says Sign your posts on talk pages: then has a four tilde blue link that inserts your signature. Livewireo (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In the U.S. they do… —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Anyway, was I supposed to go on typing "~" four times every time I needed to sign something on Wikipedia for the rest of my days?" That's what I do - didn't know there was any other way of doing it! I don't know what astonishes me more: my lack of clue about the technology or Quis separabit's concept of what's onerous... DeCausa (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto DeCausa; I always type the tildes. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's possible to automate signing, why do we require that every editor ritually append four tildes after each talkpage comment? It's just make-work. It also serves as a shibboleth - we can easily spot those editors on a talkpage who haven't yet learned this utterly pointless system. bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Avaya Promotional Campaign

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

I have identified what appears to be an ongoing campaign to destroy coverage of Avaya competitors, while preserving and expanding coverage for Avaya products. This group of mostly SPAs has been involved in voting Keep at Avaya related AfDs, while voting delete at AfDs for Avaya competitor products. One particular account has gotten many dozens of articles for Avaya competitors deleted, or tagged with negative article issue tags, all the while voting keep in Avaya AfDs. The center of this effort seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel which I have nominated for deletion, since its membership is almost all meatpuppets and SPAs, save one or two. Because this problem is wide-ranging in number of accounts and longevity and not likely to be solved with blocks or bans, I think it's going to require ongoing vigilance from all administrators to recognize actions that are part of this marketing campaign, and to carefully consider AfD closures when the topic is networking or computer hardware. Gigs (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Added spam-tracking above, and asked for creation of m:User:COIBot/XWiki/avaya.com (which covers the other). Under the top users of that link are quite a number which are in the Avaya Pushers document by Gigs:

• Geek2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• SpudMcCoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Camillevc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 208.25.46.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

More will be in the report. Looks pretty promotional. Maybe consider a bit of cleanup. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the edits are at least superficially constructive. Gigs (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia in a constructive manner? Spammers are also sometimes constructing whole spam-pages for their company, and there may be merit in parts of the text, or the company may be notable - but that does not mean that it is still spamming what the editor is doing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just pointing out that this is "next generation" promotion mostly from users savvy of our norms and customs, which makes it all the more insidious. Gigs (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a look through Geek2003's userspace and nominated most of it for deletion. MER-C 02:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bots keep adding incorrect wiki links

I don't really know where to start this discussion, so if this is the wrong place please feel free to move it to the correct place. Bots keep adding incorrect inter-wiki links to Psy (film), basically because it has the same title to another film on foreign language wikis. Our article is about a 1992 film while the others are about a 1989 film. Is there a way we can stop the automated addition of these links? Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment out the incorrect links. See User talk:Yurik/Interwiki Bot FAQ#The bot keeps adding back an incorrect link to site xx, what should I do? Graham87 05:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed motion on "net four votes" rule

A motion on the "net four votes" rule has been proposed. Editors may comment in the Community comments concerning motion section.

For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at Redirects for discussion

There is since the unofficial summer break a substantial backlog at Redirects for discussion. More hands in closing but also more participation in some discussions would be helpful. Thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Visalus page limited on challenge kit information.

Hello administrator, I would like to edit the Visalus page to give people more insight on where to find the challenge kits and how much each and every product cost. I believe I made the edit, but was unable to set up the template page. The site that contains all this info can be found at www.zbullock.bodybyvi.com. Full details on the challenge and all specifics to help people in their search for more specific information is found in this site. Thank you for all your help. Respectfully, Zac Bullock Regional Director @ Visalus Sciences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visaluszac (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As an employee of the company, you should not be editing the page at all, per WP:COI. Thanks. --Rschen7754 19:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Plus Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. GiantSnowman 19:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin help needed at UTRS

I'm sending out an appeal for admins willing to lend a hand with unblock requests at UTRS. There are times recently when I log in after 24+ hours and the last unblock requests closed were mine, and a list of 20 or so new requests await. Right now there are requests that have been sitting in the queue for days that I can't close as I was the blocking admin, have already declined an unblock by the user, or am otherwise somehow involved. You can sign up for access here and most of the requests are simple to close as there are multiple response templates available with a single click. Any additional help would be appreciated! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Either need more admins or need to fix the UTRS system. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing less as I've now got a job - sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, your absence has been noted! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Applications for the UTRS interface do not get processed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Done! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Unable to proceed" creating redirection pages for national flag emoji

The Emoji article lists a lot of Unicode emoji picture characters, and many of these have been wiki-linked, usually to redirection pages that take you to an article discussing the picture's concept. Not all of the pictures had been so linked, and I tried to do a few more. But when I tried to create redirects for the national flags (🇯🇵 → Flag of Japan, 🇰🇷 → Flag of South Korea, 🇩🇪 → Flag of Germany, 🇨🇳 → Flag of China, 🇺🇸 → Flag of the United States, 🇫🇷 → Flag of France, 🇪🇸 → Flag of Spain, 🇮🇹 → Flag of Italy, 🇷🇺 → Flag of Russia, 🇬🇧 → Flag of the United Kingdom) I get an "unable to proceed" error with a message asking me to post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is the title blacklist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why they're needed - they're merely listed as examples with actual links afterwards dangerouspanda 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

They're not amazingly useful, but we've long had redirects for other Unicode characters to the articles that talk about the items in the symbol; that's why ☂ and ✄ are redirects to Umbrella and Scissors, for example. Deleting them really wouldn't be helpful, and since we have a lot of them anyway, we might as well create the rest. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant rule seems to be

.*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles

(The comment says "very few", but that rule limits it to none.) Interesting that single-character titles outside the BMP are still allowed, but the flags are not, presumably because they are each coded using two Unicode characters. Perhaps the title blacklist is not supposed to apply to single-character articles. In that case this might be a bug in the software in that the flags are not recognised as single characters when they should be (it's a bit of a special case though). Silas S. Brown (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See Regional Indicator Symbol, maybe we should add U+1F1E6 through U+1F1FF to the list of allowed characters? Silas S. Brown (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a bug. These flags are two characters, not one, and only one-character titles are whitelisted. I'd recommend against a blanket whitelisting of these characters, but it might not be entirely out of place if someone wants to whitelist ^(Talk:)?[\x{1F1E6}-\x{1F1FF}][\x{1F1E6}-\x{1F1FF}]$ specifically.

Also note that the reasoning behind the rule blocking all of those characters with the comment "very few" is that the very few exceptions can be easily enough handled by asking an admin to create the article. Anomie⚔ 05:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've created all of the links that Silas mentioned; let me know if you find others that need to be created. As I said above, I don't see these as being particularly useful, but it's definitely un-useful for some of them to exist and some not. Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sysops can delete things from Special:FeedbackDashboard now

(Cross-posting from VPT) Per request from responders at Wikipedia talk:New editor feedback, we've added the ability to delete feedback permanently, and extended the 'hide/unhide' function to all autoconfirmed editors. May the force be with you, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to try deleting one to see what it's like, but I don't know what we consider abusive enough to delete (let alone to hide), and I don't want to get rid of som:eone else's valid comment. Is there a way to submit feedback as a test? Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to register a test account. Anyway, there isn't a policy about what to hide or delete, but generally delete was added because people do write abusive or vandalism-like comments ("My penis is huge" or "Editor who reverted me is a bitch") occasionally. I think people should just use their best judgement. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good; I've seen a few really bizarre rants and general asshattery that should be completely removed from view, so it's good to be able to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also nice for removing spam links posted there....or personal info. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

....which brings me to the question (perhaps a silly one): can it also be oversighted? Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, there is no oversight. However, there is no undelete. So while this doesn't completely delete it from the database, it means that anything deleted is effectively gone forever. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• How does one delete it? The options I can see are Feature this post, Mark as resolved, Hide this post, Request oversight, View activity. GiantSnowman 11:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm....I can see delete feedback, hide feedback and respond. Are you talking about the article feedback? We are talking about the feedback dashboard I think. Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• So we are - my bad! GiantSnowman 11:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of the hassle of creating/using a test account, an option is to submit your own feedback and then delete/hide your feedback. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 10:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

NAC, supervote and vote counting

A non-admin did a NAC here Talk:Reincarnation_research#Extended_rationale, but their rationale appears to be a super-vote and vote counting. An uninvolved admin close was originally requested (by me) because it's a contentious topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Eraserhead1#About_closure_of_discussion_in_.22Talk:Reincarnation_research.22 for more examples of a vote counting mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have closed it the same way (don't know, didn't look closely enough to do that) but on the face of it the close is reasonable and not a supervote. The closer felt that major changes to the article since many of the !votes came in meant that those !votes were addressing a different article. I'm also unclear how something can be both vote counting and a supervote unless it's really really clear that policy/guidelines strongly force an outcome--something I don't see here. As far as the canvassing issue goes, there were problems on both sides (Maths, Science and Technology as the RfC home, really?). Given the nature of the close there is plenty of room for a new close (the closer made that clear I'd say). Hobit (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Half of it is a supervote, the other half is vote counting. Science makes the most sense for an article which is about parapsychology research. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point I think you are just trying to make an unsubstantial complaint about a close that you didn't like. Given the number of disputes I have helped solve I am perfectly capable of handling and ignoring such complaints - however I don't think the same applies to the majority of our admin community.

There's a reason that many admins shy away from difficult closes and it is complaints like this which have little substance to them that prevent them from closing discussions. This actually prevents the project from moving forward and it is very disruptive if we can't get difficult discussions closed.

Of course it is reasonable to complain about closures if they are grossly bad, e.g. the closer was WP:INVOLVED or they grossly made the wrong decision, as would have happened in this case if the closure had occurred on the 23 August. The last closure I complained about involved the closing admins ignoring instructions from the arbitration committee on the method of closure, which is also at that sort of level. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have substantiated it exactly; you vote counted, you admit as much. You discounted the opinions of others, because only one person rebutted the "substantial" improvements to the article argument. "Since 23 August, when the article started to improve, of the three new people to comment one is in support of the merge, and two are against, which is substantially different from the overall numbers for the whole RFC (10 in support vs 6 against). It is certainly possible that the people who felt this article should be merged still hold that view, but while we could ask them to update their comments, we may as well start a brand new discussion as that will minimise any potential for loss of face should they change their minds." You didn't give the arguments any way, you just said that the editors didn't reconfirm their votes, clearly indicating you are counting votes as your reason.

"With regards to the scientific value of the research, perhaps that isn't made clear enough, but that should be resolvable with standard NPOV discussions and processes, and I don't think that is a compelling reason to ..." that is a supervote, I would expect editors to make that comment while voting. Noone made that argument in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable for the closer to say that some arguments aren't compelling. That is what consensus is all about. I am also not clear on how you can show a swing without looking at the numbers. I didn't require any specific count so argung vote counting is ridiculous. You can't insist that people close every discussion how you would as a partisan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In principle everything would be OK. That is, I can imagine an RFC that could be reasonably closed in a similar way. But, you see, if you count "swing" votes and miss some (as I am arguing in your talk page - [36]), getting a "swing" of 1:2 and later 2:3 instead of a contrary 6:4, then things become worse...

Also, it's OK to assign weight to arguments. But in this case it has been argued that you assigned them incorrectly, giving too much weight to the "improvement", the value of which has been questioned. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the swing given 3 people is such a small number it will have very large error bars on it. Including a couple more people and reducing the percentage from 67% to 60% doesn't seem to be a statistically significant change, especially given that existing posters are extremely unlikely to change their minds.

Fundamentally the improvement to the article is obvious. If you so partial about this subject that you cannot see that the article has improved significantly then you shouldn't be posting here to challenge the decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, I'll give a link to the diffs on the talk page where one relevant misunderstanding has just been cleared up: [37], [38]. That should explain some thing to the readers of this discussion. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If Martynas had already addressed the point I was going to make there is no point me making it again because it's not a vote count. That I now see that you discounted my opinion because I didn't reiterate it, because you were vote counting, seems unfair. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the diff I linked (especially the places "It opens a pandora's box of other content that post-decision a closer is expected to read - this increases significantly the amount of work one has to do on a given close, and it opens the possibility for a lengthly series of appeals as one side and then the other brings up some other discussion thread which benefits their side." and "Closing discussions isn't easy at the best of times so we certainly need to have a coherently communicated section to close. If the discussion becomes too complex it strongly risks having to be closed as no-consensus or a closure never takes place."), I suspect that the closer does agree that his decision is not completely fair, but thinks that changing it would set a bad precedent, making closing discussions harder and discouraging closes... That might also be true (in this case 20 days passed between the "official" end of RFC - [39] - and closing - [40])... I wonder if there is anything we could do to make closing discussions (and doing so well) easier... Maybe a short optional checklist might help a little..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worth reading up on WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. There are some significant differences between "NAC", which is a specific term used in XfD, and the closure of RFCs, which clearly states that any uninvolved editor can close and that contentious RFCs should be formally closed in this way. So Eraserhead1's lacking the admin bit is less important here than it would be in an XfD. That said, I can see why concerns have been raised that the close has connotations of both a head count and a supervote. Nonetheless, Eraserhead1 does not appear to have an iron in this fire and went to lengths to explain his close. It isn't egregious. Personally I reckon that if there are still concerns over the content here (specifically coatracking) it should just to go AfD: these days most AfD closing admins are smart enough to see through the old "merges are not appropriate at AfD" schtick that used to be employed to derail such discussions, and will consider a merge / redirect to be a valid outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

GA ban

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

---

Hi people. I got topic banned from reviewing Good Article nominations back in April 2011. Since then (just over one year ago, in fact) I got approved for one trial review to see if I could be let back in to the area. I held off for a while before taking the chance but in August this year reviewed Talk:Clifton Down railway station. I think that one has gone alright so I'm asking if I can be de-topic banned and allowed to continue with it now I have proved I can review properly. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You should cross-post to WT:GAN as well. --Rschen7754 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There are so many other things to do, why put yourself back in that situation? There are areas I don't dare tread because I don't want to put myself into a situation where I might not be able to look back on my actions approvingly. I could to a perfectly good job there, and I don't even have a track record one way or the other to indicate that my fears are well founded, but I still stay away. Can you give us some sort of reason why you want to get back into that area? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that even relevant? Except for blocks/bans to deal with disruption, we do not have the right to dictate to people where they should and should not edit. The only thing that matters is whether Rcsprinter is likely to repeat the behaviour that led to the topic ban. Just because he would like to work in an area you prefer not to work in, doesn't mean he has to justify that to you. Reyk _YO! 06:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support- Aside from this business of citations in the lead, I see nothing much wrong with your GA review. I very much doubt that if the topic ban is lifted you'll do anything irresponsible or disruptive, so I support lifting it. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• A lot can change in eighteen months. Given that the issue was immaturity (which is one problem that some time off really does help with), it's reasonable to assume that it won't be a problem again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems a reasonable request. WP:GAN needs more hands on deck; why the hell not? —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, need more reviewers that are at least willing to put effort into their reviews, even if they aren't perfect. Wizardman 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, there's a perennial backlog at WP:GAN and you've followed exactly the right process, so I think it's safe to let you back on. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - you have adhered to your ban and have taken it slowly. If/when you are un-banned I'd advise you to continue to take it slowly for a while while you get back into the swing of things. GiantSnowman 15:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for Alan Liefting

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.

---

Can we please topic ban User:Alan Liefting from all category-related edits outside of mainspace? He has been warned, taken to AN or ANI (e.g. here from June and here from September, and blocked for this in the past, the last time in September for 72 hours. Now, he is again doing the kind of edits that lead to User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 16#Removing images from categories. He has removed all images from Category:Obama family, without moving them to a subcat or other useful category, leaving them basically stranded, for no good discernible reason at all. Edits: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] He also removed one template from the cat for no obvious reason[51].

In the september discussion linked above, a topic ban was supported by a number of people, but not formally proposed and forgotten when the topic was auto-archived. Considering that he simply continues with the same kind of edits again and again, it seems to me to be time to now formalize the discussion of that topic ban, which will be more helpful for everyone involved than a series of escalating blocks. Fram (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I proposed a topic ban at the previous discussion in September; there was support, but the discussion fizzled out before it could be confirmed & implemented. He has continued his disruptive editing, so my support for a topic ban remains as strong as ever. GiantSnowman 09:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support seems to be stuck in a repetitive loop of behaviour. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as previously. Long overdue.

I would also suggest that the scope of this topic ban be potentially larger (ie mainspace cats too). Certainly I would be concerned that if AL is narrowly topic banned, he will simply edit outside that ban, but still causing just as much problem. The sanction of rapidly widening the scope of the ban, should it be needed, (still within cats though) should be a clear part part of the initial sanction. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Suppport as previously (August, I believe, on my part). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll wait for an explanation from Alan Liefting for the image removals (it is obviously not necessary to wait, or even ask, for explanations before a thread is started or !voting is commenced ..). Re: "He also removed one template from the cat for no obvious reason" (actually two if I see it correctly) - I can understand a case to be made for images being in 'mainspace' categories, but templates certainly do not belong there.(strike that, I see it is more common - looked strange to me to have templates categorised there, they are). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Adapted: --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do templates not belong there? This is {{Family of Michelle Robinson Obama}}, in the category Category:Obama family (with the sort key 'τ Michelle Robinson Obama', itself an interesting idea). If "templates can ever belong in categories", then this one belonged. Removed it is thus justified if and only if, we have a blanket policy that templates are never to be categorized in categories also used for content. I don't believe that we have, or that we should have, such a policy. Are we really "trying to hide the internal workings of MediaWiki" to that extent? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed that, it is actually more common than I expected. By the way, I am not sure why you say that we are 'trying to hide the internal workings of MediaWiki', but well. I'll await the explanation from Alan. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As an editor, it is useful to me to have templates categorised with their topics. For readers alone, then there is some argument for simplifying the presentation of a category but not including such templates and "workings", limiting our presentation to just the "published" content. We can't easily achieve both of these, so there must be some compromise. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

For me in the beginning it was 'why would you ever want to have templates categorised with main space material, they are already transcluded on (sometimes all) the articles in the category - but I can see that there are special cases (and I think we should be careful with 'they are handy for the editor' when they do not help the reader). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not exactly familiar with the history of this issue myself (let alone involved), but the presentation above has convinced me that Alan's behavior has been disruptive and repetitive, so a topic ban seems the only way to proceed here. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Unlike templates, images don't belong in content categories: either they're nonfree, in which case they're not allowed in categories (except for maintenance categories) because they display there, or they're free, in which case they should be moved to Commons and deleted here. Images properly tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}} are an exception, but I can't imagine how that would apply to any Obama family images. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Free images can be copied to Commons, but they don't have to be deleted from Wikipedia (see Template:Keep local), and so long as they exist here it makes sense to categorize them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)The category is tagged with __NOGALLERY__, hence the images were just categorised there, not displayed. NFCC does not allow the display of non-free images outside mainspace. I believe that most images de-categorised here are non-free. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin: that's why I said "should be copied and deleted", not "must" or "are". Dirk: I missed the fact that it had NOGALLERY. Do you know what images were there, or are you simply going by this edit summary? Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• The images that were in the Category:Obama family were File:Barack Obama's Kenyan relatives.jpg,File:Stanley Ann Dunham 1960 Mercer Island High School yearbook.jpg,File:MadelynDunham.jpg,File:Fraser Robinson, Sr.jpg,File:Family of Fraser and Marian Robinson.jpg,File:BarackStepdad.JPG, File:Barack Hussein Obama, Sr..jpg and File:Ann Dunham with father and children.jpg. There were also two files in the Category:Barack Obama, which is not tagged as "nogallery", but both files were correctly licensed to be displayed there anyway: File:Barack Obama's Presidential Job Approval Ratings, 2009-2012 (Gallup Poll).svg and File:Barack-Obama-long-form.jpg. Fram (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Nyttend: there are also images that are free in the US but not free in their country of origin, hence free for Wikipedia but not eligible for upload to Commons. So it's definitely not as simple as you describe. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Such images we tag with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template that I already mentioned. The birth certificate is not freely licensed: unless someone from President Kennedy's office happened to be assigned to work in the Hawaii Department of Health, it's purely a work of the Hawaiian state government, whose works are copyrighted and not freely licensed. The amount of discussion given to his birth and the certificate thereof means that it might be usable under fair use; I'll be happy to undelete if someone want to use it that way. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - anybody else concerned by Alan Liefting's silence? GiantSnowman 08:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, it's really unacceptable that he continue to ignore clearly demonstrated consensus on this, particular when his own attempt to make his views policy in an RFC was soundly rejected. Alan does many constructive things here, but there are many things he does in which he is convinced he is right but doesn't feel obligated to justify or explain hkmself, discuss, or even acknowledge that others have voiced an opinion. This is one of those things. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Per above; enough is enough. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:SPI

Has a backlog that needs clearing

We are up to our eyeballs in socks. We really need some patrolling admin to come and help sniff out socks and compare a few diffs. Just the fun stuff. If we can get some admin to patrol a bit more and do the leg work, what few clerks we have will happily do all the paperwork and mop up the place afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Perhaps more admins are needed?←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I'd do it but I'm not a sysop and unlikely to ever pass RFA. I don't know many people who would be willing to go through that torture chamber just so they can volunteer to fulfill additional tasks. : / The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC) As long as RFA's remain nothing more than a popularity contest, this problem will continue. Admins could fix that problem, but they'd rather complain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC) You know, one of the purposes of this board is to alert admins as to how they could help in some way at this particular moment. It's a useful tool for me, at least. But then, I tend to like to pitch in and help out, rather than merely lurk on some board and idly complain about the cobwebs : p - jc37 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Yeh, well, they could get plenty of help from me, if I had the authority. But until you all change the process, you will remain short of admins, and you have only yourselves to blame for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Admins don't have "authority", they merely have "responsibility". We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 00:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC) By authority, I think he means having the capable tools to do the backlog. All editors are (or should be) responsible, but a declining administrator population opens ourselves to administrators not being at the necessary noticeboards, which is part of a problem we are (going to be) facing . Regards, — Moe ε 02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, I'm talking about "authority" strictly in the computer sense. Like various authority levels granted for databases, servers, networks, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC) You need to run for admin Bugs. Go ahead, throw your hat in the ring. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC) been done, didn't work out so well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Before getting too haughty, you should count the number of "No" voters in 2009 who have since been booted from wikipedia. I say again, as long as it remains a popularity contest, you will continue to have this problem. If you don't want to fix it, then don't whine about being short of help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Ha, I noted CoM didn't really support you there, Bugs. You'd get my vote. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Well, thank you for your support. I appreciate it. The rap against me was that I lack the "temperament" to be an admin. In reality, I am over-cautious with authorities or privileges or whatever term to be used. I've had rollback for years, use it only sparingly, and I don't recall that I've ever been accused of mis-using it. But whatever. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Non-admins can also be quite useful. Obvious childish petulance can be closed, bad reports can get additional diffs inserted to make them clear and easy for admins to act on, etc. Just having an independent observer sort through the evidence, draw a conclusion, an explain it can make wading through some of these things an order of magnitude faster. Obviously, being an admin helps even more. The thing that would help the most is for more admins to realize that it is within your power to block, tag, and revert a sockpuppet without filing an SPI report for others to wade through.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Indeed, but those who are not "Non-admins" lack the technical tools to be truly as "useful" as they might be. Some of us wonder what the terms "usefulness" or "Non-admins" really mean when those terms are used by those who are not "Non-admins" to describe those who are, and why those who seem to have authority don't do more to fix a system that prevents access to those technical tools from those willing and able to use them. Steveozone (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC) My, look at all these cobwebs. It's a shame that someone with a cobweb removing tools doesn't come through here and remove these. Maybe we need to start several discussions about the great need to hand out more cobweb cleaning tools. And if we all spend our time on that, then it could be argued that we'll need even more cobweb tools to be handed out, etc. ad infinitum... - jc37 02:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't worry. It's unlikely the problem will ever become "ad infinitum" when the whole place becomes choked by "cobwebs." Steveozone (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC) By "cobwebs", I have to suppose that JC means the inactive admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Well, that's quite civil. I don't suppose that I have to suppose that; it's pretty clear that he's referring to more, including at least what "Dennis Brown" refers to as the "fun stuff." I'm sure that he'll clarify, anyway... Steveozone (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Not sure how you interpreted cobwebs to be inactive admins, bugs. I'm merely suggesting that it might be worth doing something about the cobwebs (whatever task at hand) than merely standing around in a coffee klatch, idly complaining and engaging in navel gazing pursuits. And note, I've definitely spent my fair share of time at WT:RfA, and probably will in the future. (Though I don't think anyone could honestly say that I haven't been trying to do something to fix the issues at RfA.) - jc37 04:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I don't actually have a clue what you mean by "cobwebs", even with the above explanation. Give some of us the ability to temporarily block (like for 24 hours), and a lot of cobwebs could get swept away. And such an authority could be like rollback: Abuse it, lose it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (now non-admin, non-CheckUser comment) As it stands, SPI is still too complicated for everyday users to depend upon. I have tried to make the process easier to go through, but I'm afraid I have failed in that part, as well. All that being said, that is the tip of the iceberg. What I really think is going on is that most users generally disregard sockpuppetry as a major issue – especially with regards to editor retention – and that sockpuppetry is not important to most Wikipedians. To that effect, perhaps the sock puppetry policy should be toned down to allow more exceptions so that more editors are felt welcomed back here. The same applies to the banning policy. --MuZemike 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC) +2. Or however many tokens I get on the issue. Maybe I'm confused, but really? --"cobwebs" is more about the shortcomings of people who see them than the problems with the articles that are ignored while people play "whack a mole" and worry about who/what caused the problems? Really? Those "cobwebs" aren't little wispy things; they are the stench rising from the alleys and backyards that permeate this place. I've reverted the miscreants that pissed in articles I watch. I'm not real thrilled with contributing to an encyclopedia project that is more interested in how vandals are addressed than in the quality of the walls on which the vandals are pissing. So to speak. Steveozone (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC) You've got it. I was on here for a significant stretch of time before I even knew anything about ANI and sockpuppets and SPI's and so on. Having had a couple of seriously bad experiences similar to what you're describing, it raised my awareness exponentially. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Perhaps it's time that we all reassess who are the real editors and who are the real vandals. --MuZemike 05:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I can't speak for others, but with several thousand items on my own watchlist, much of it tends to be about defending what's there... a defense necessarily due to the low level of protections here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I'm going to say that I found the removing of the transclusions off the SPI unhelpful - before, I could go through and look for the clear-cut cases to deal with; now I have to open up multiple tabs. --Rschen7754 04:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I have proposed earlier that SPI cases could be run in separate L2 threads (just as here at WP:AN) and then separated there into separate archive threads based on user, but those were all shot down. Again, I think the bigger issue is that the Wikipedia community is indifferent on sockpuppetry in general, and any changes to WP:SPI won't change any of that. --MuZemike 04:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) The problem is that they are indifferent to it until it affects their particular topic area, and then they get really excited about that particular case. Once it's over, they go back to being indifferent. I'd propose greatly simplifying WP:SOCK myself, not making exceptions. Make it clear that people are expected to have one account, stick to it, and only have alternates for truly exceptional cases like approved bots. Allow people one account rename during their editing history, and be done with it. I'm tired of trying to debate the difference between socking and clean starts, when indefinitely blocked accounts need to have edits reverted and when they don't, all this nonsense. I'd just eliminate the idea of legitimate alternate accounts: if it's alternate, it is very, very, very rarely truly legitimate.—Kww(talk) 04:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I think Dennis should interject at this point, as he was telling me recently that in his opinion, the Foundation is actually scared of falsely accusing someone of sockpuppetry, for legal reasons, and that's why they make the process difficult and (in my opinion) over-cautious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC) The problem is that it is so immensely easy to create an account to create a sockpuppet account, it makes one wonder why we have a coherent username policy in the first place. --MuZemike 04:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I feel quite passionate about sockpuppetry, having dealt with it for several years now, and have seen the associated deception ruin entire subject areas (like California roads) and chase away editors. --Rschen7754 04:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Let me reiterate, if anything else: If you tell a person in the face: 'Don't create any other accounts again!' and knowing that you aren't any police officer or anything similar, is he or she going to really listen to you? Chances are, he or she will do exactly what you told him or her not to do, and you repeat the cycle over and over and over and over again. --MuZemike 05:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC) That's why I've told indefinitely blocked users who try to sock that we have tools they don't know about, and we've been doing this sort of thing for a while now, so that if they sock, they will most likely be found out, and thus socking is futile. --Rschen7754 05:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC) But there are many such banned users out there who don't care about our rules, because they know they can get around them. --MuZemike 05:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (EC with Bugs) There's the problem. It's not about who is banned or not; it's about whether what is put into the article is rational and helpful. It's not so hard to tell the difference between those playing games and those who are here to contribute, especially for those of us who have a watchlist of articles that we have some knowledge about and want to protect from pissing. Steveozone (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC) You're right, and I gather the Foundation isn't overly concerned. Some of these guys go on for years. I can think of several pages (which I certainly won't name) that are permanently semi-protected due to the unrelenting edit-warring of obsessed users who keep creating new user names. Eventually they tend to get tired of it, or more likely bored with it, and presumably move on to something else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Yeah, that's the fundamental point of WP:RBI. They get reverted, blocked, and ignored, and the changes don't stick. Wouldn't that be frustrating? --Rschen7754 05:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC) To us? Yes. To them? No, not if they're seriously obsessed. Some of them have gone on literally for 4 or 5 years or more, edit-warring over a single sentence in an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Isn't the point whether the edits, the changes, are acceptable by rational people looking to improve things here? Rather than trying to figure out who is trying to make edits or changes? After all, it's about the content, not the editor, right? Steveozone (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I've had admins opine to me that we should downplay the sockpuppetry issue (for practical reasons) and simply focus on tendentious editing when it happens. There is some merit to that argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Kww - So would simplifying it solve the problem? "we don't care how many socks you have, but if you use a sock to disrupt the bold or consensus process (edit warring, or multiple "votes" in an xfd, for example), then all the individual's accounts will be blocked." And I personally wish that just like we have an automatic filter, that we had an automatic CU for process pages like XfD or RfA. I welcome comments on what this would "break". - jc37 04:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Better to take all of the wasted energy now devoted to sockpuppet shows and Punch and Judy violence and drama, and devote it to implement some version of Flagged revisions, that would acknowledge those of us (even "non-admins") who are here to contribute are relatively obvious compared to the folks who are here because "anyone can edit." Steveozone (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Flagged revisions seemed like a good idea. I don't understand why it was dropped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I think you took my "non-admin" comment in a way that I did not intend at all. I simply meant that many tasks as SPI can be done without using admin powers.—Kww(talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC) That's not what I meant at all, Jc37. I meant that if someone creates a second account, he should be blocked, booted out of here, and gone for good. The trivial gain we get from allowing people to edit "embarrassing" topics with one account and "serious" topics with another just isn't worth the additional hassle that trying to sort legitimate alternates from socks creates.—Kww(talk) 05:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC) To both above, Kww, I know what you meant by "non-admin" but that's not what others think of the phrase. It doesn't matter whether someone is able to put edits in here; everyone can do that, right? The point is to start thinking about what goes into this encyclopedia, rather than the crowdsourced "value" of the identity who is contributing. Steveozone (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC) lol, there are days I sometimes wonder if wikipedia has grown to a point where we need to have a policy of one person, one account, no IPs (with an exception for a clearly delineated secondary account for automated editing/bots). But I have to admit that I think there may be times where someone made some past mistakes, and wants a "do over", and so another part of me wants to give that person that chance. And there are plenty of decent IP editors. But then, I also think that BLP articles should be split to a separate mediawiki wiki (with its own specific rules and policies), treating all of wikimedia as "the encyclopedia". So I dunno. But I do wish these problems could be resolved - jc37 05:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Wow. So how did we lose sight of the encyclopedia content-contributing edits trees for the forest of "sockpuppets" and "banned users"? Steveozone (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I get that you're trying to make a "forest for the trees" reference, but I'm not understanding what you're attempting to convey, could you re-phrase? - jc37 06:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC) A few years of dealing with subject areas that were completely paralyzed by people that created multiple edits so that they could distort articles to match their personal tastes changes your perspective, Steve. The key to making Wikipedia work is obtaining a consensus of all editors involved. When the "all editors" becomes five editors working honestly and one editor with twenty accounts working to persuade the five that they are part of a small minority because they disagree with twenty other editors, it perverts the entire system. I spend most of my time dealing with banned editors and socks, and that doesn't mean that I've lost sight of content: it just means that I believe that you can't get consensus about content when there's pervasive cheating. Of course, I would like to know what accounts you were using before this one: it's pretty apparent that you are an alternate for some other account.—Kww(talk) 06:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) That remark is exactly what I'm talking about. You'd rather "win" the discussion than consider what I've said, and you're now inviting me to play poker with my identity. That is insulting. If you had any way to resolve that issue, you'd use it. How about dealing with the comments of someone who has been here for five years, but has a life? How about dropping the confrontation and addressing things? You spend your time dealing with banned editors and socks because this whole place is set up to worry about such things, rather than the content. Again, what if you could just say "Nope, sorry, your edit is not approved," and be done with half of the crap that comes into this place? Steveozone (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC) In fact, pal, I'll go one step further. This is the kind of crap that is the reason why although I find WP interesting, I just can't do it as a hobby, because this sort of stuff just makes it untasteful. Wanna take a look at my edits? Have a look at how often I just walk away from goofy shit that somebody put in. It doesn't take much to take away my taste for the debate. Until now. You're the first person who has ever accused me of any sort of wrongdoing here. Steveozone (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC) "Having a life" is a great thing. Pointing out that you have a life implies that others commenting here do not. This makes them much less likely to want to listen to you. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 06:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I certainly apologize to anyone offended, but in all fairness, that's an inference, not an implication, and I wonder if it's one that only those hoping for a reason to be insulted might draw. Again, have a look at my edits, and look at what I'm saying; that's much more fair than trying to look for a way to discount what I'm saying. By the way, I'd tell you about that life I got, but I don't like talking about 2011 after my heart attack and surgery, and you really don't want to hear about it. Jus' sayin'. Steveozone (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I'm not saying you offended anyone, or that anyone was offended (or looking to be offended by the statement). I'm just saying that those sort of statements aren't going to help win you many debates. YMMV. Good luck to you, and sorry to hear about your health problems. Doc talk 07:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Your advice is in fact directly responsive to what I've said, and entirely inappropriate. Someone thought that since I have less than 2000 edits since 2007, my point is somehow less than worthy of consideration, apparently deciding that I've not done enough work. Whatever. Again, I am advocating for the position that the weight of one's article edits, rather than one's identity, or editing frequency, or life, is what is important here, and the enforcement mechanisms that run contrary to that principle are counterproductive and wrong. We worry about the forest of perceived sockpuppets, rather than the trees/edits planted by so many anonymous folks here from around the world. I didn't come up with that principle; it seems to be a part of what Wikipedia is about. If we can't deal with trees that someone has planted for fear that they shouldn't have planted them, then I fear for the project. That's all. Steveozone (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Jack Merridew/Davenbelle/Br'er Rabbit/...

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.

---

• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alarbus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tar Baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Br'er Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(The above is for illustration purposes only and is nowhere close to an exhaustive list. See also User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew

This has gone on for long enough. This editor's got so many accounts that I'm not sure what he should be called, but I'm going to refer to this editor as Jack Merridew (JM) since that's what he's called when he was unbanned by ArbCom. Basically, he had a big sockfarm then, which is why arbcom included a single-account restriction in his unban motion. That restriction was kept (with an unrelated exception for a bot) in 2009 when his unban conditions were reviewed. Nonetheless, JM decided to create Gold Hat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which would later come back to bite him when JM then went to arbcom in 2011 to try to get his single-account restriction lifted. When it was clear that the restriction would stay, JM...threw a temper tantrum, deliberately compromised all of his accounts (creating lots of work for stewards who had to lock them all and oversighters who had to suppress his edits). In June 2011, an arbcom motion was passed directing him to edit only from a single account.

Instead, JM decided to sock and use IPs to evade the arbcom restriction. In this process, he deliberately compromised a number of his socks, again creating work for stewards and oversighters. Eventually he came back as Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs), and edited in relative peace until he got blocked for edit warring on Template:Civility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Instead of doing what most editors blocked for edit warring do (either sit the block out or make an unblock request), JM decided to evade the block using a sock created in late July, in violation of the arbcom restriction, and well-after his return as Br'er. When that account was blocked by a checkuser, he created a new sock, User:Br'er Bear, and proceeded to verbally abuse the blocking admin and Raul654, who I understand was not on the best of terms with him.

Enough is enough. The creation of Tar Baby (talk · contribs) is the breaking point for me. Even if we consider Br'er Bear as a heat of the moment thing, there's absolutely no excuse for creating a sock in July in violation of the arbcom restriction. We are talking about someone who had a sockfarm before the unban, who then created another sockfarm when his request to lift the single-account restriction was declined by arbcom, and now yet again started socking. I propose a full community ban. T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - there are no third chances.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Civility template warring is particularly ironic. This guy is poison, he cannot work within guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• By the letter of policy, I would lean to support your rationale. I have however seen where enforcing clear civility violations is furloughed when considering the valuable contributions of the offender. In keeping with such spirit, a ban is clearly over the top and obviously counterproductive. I haven't given a cursory look at the circumstances, but venture an odds on guess that when I do, culprits will be seen to have substantially provoked the matter. And they always seem immune for their actions. I say this can be handled with a block. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Civility violations are one thing, sockpuppetry is quite another. The latter involves actual deception, a much greater breach of community trust, and evidences a much more significant disregard of community norms. There's a reason why a first block for socking is usually at least one or two weeks. T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  And where exactly was the deception in using a declared alternate account (Tar Baby) to vent some anger? Nobody is going to seriously tell me that they thought Br'er was being deceptive when he posted "Courcelles ¡ Fuck you, too ¡", are they? --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  But it was a clearly unacceptable personal attack. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Where was Tar Baby declared before it was blocked? T. Canens (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support You know, I used to be rather supportive of Jack Merridew; he had rather persuasive supporters and the narriative of ArbCom not following through with what it said it was going to do has been played out so many times that appling it to Jack's situation wasn't a stretch. However Jack's latest account has done a fair amount of trolling, and the Ba'er Bear account's actions are unarguably unacceptable. I wonder how many former supporters he's burned through. I, for one, won't be supportive of him getting a "third" chance. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No third chances. Ironholds (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support He seems to have burned all his bridges; no third chances. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 04:33, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No third chances and the poor treatment of other members of the community should have been stopped long ago. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I rarely vote on community bans, but I rarely see someone who so clearly deserves it. In my personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. -Philippe (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is part of a long-running, ongoing cycle that (presumably) started with his first ban as Moby Dick. Make a few accounts so he can do different things without attracting attention, then he gets into trouble with one or more users, storms off in a dramatic huff while the friends he made in the right places defend his name and try to (often successfully) argue that he is a net positive to Wikipedia despite his misbehavior. There have been so many socks - the list above is only a fraction. Some are created only as "jokes" (some people find them funny, some aren't laughing), and some of them are clearly created only to cause some kind of trouble. He has had so many chances to just fade into obscurity with a new account, but it always seems to come back to more controversy. A block is irrelevant, because he can and will (as evidenced by recent continued socking) create new accounts. A community ban, if that is the decision, will not stop him from creating new accounts either, but at least when that happens admins can just block them when they are found. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I think the "while the friends he made in the right places" bit reads as a bit too cynical. Jack is a genuinely nice guy and an interesting person to talk to, when he's not trolling or launching personal attacks. I don't think he went out of his way to curry favor with power brokers, as much as that he just had a good personality (usually). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. No doubt there are things administrators can see that I can't, but why ban Merridew now for an alternate account created back in July? Using undeclared alternate accounts isn't forbidden, even administrators do it, so where has Merridew been sockpuppeting? Malleus Fatuorum 04:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Malleus, your very good work in pointing out where admins consistently protected their clique of friends regardless of what those friends did would be much more effective if you didn't, you know, consistently protect your clique of friends regardless of what those friends did.101.118.53.126 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Spot on. -Scottywong| gossip _ 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think you understood what was said above. User:Br'er Bear is the sock that was used today as a way to get around the civility block made yesterday, even if the sock account in question was made in July, but not used until today. If you look at the account's contributions, you'll see him cursing out Courcelles and Raul654. Silverseren^C 05:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ever so slight point of order, the recent block that was being evaded today was for edit warring on Template:Civility, not a block for incivility. Courcelles 05:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Tar Baby (talk · contribs) was made in July and used to evade the block today. When that got blocked, Br'er Bear (talk · contribs) was created today. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, I had it reversed. Well, that makes it even worse then. Silverseren^C 05:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Those names (and "Br'er Rabbit") originated in the Uncle Remus stories, in which the "Tar-Baby" is a doll created as a means of deception (as Jack obviously is aware). Not only is he socking, but he's openly mocking the community in the process. —David Levy 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Surely "Jack Merridew" was the most evil of the characters in "Lord of the Flies"? LittleBen (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I was referring to the names "Br'er Rabbit", "Br'er Bear" and "Tar Baby". —David Levy 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  "Using undeclared alternate accounts isn't forbidden" – using them to evade a block always is; and so is using them when under a sanction saying you cannot. Jack was specifically restricted to one account because this happens when he socks. — Coren ^(talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support serial sockpuppetry to bypass retrictions has no place here. Bidgee (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I do not know or even understand all of Jack's history, but in almost every encounter I've had with him, I've been impressed with how clever, narcissistic, and untrustworthy he is. His outbursts (listed above) seem characteristic of the suave person unmasked. He must've done some awfully good work for the community to have put up with him for so long. Even without these personal observations and based purely on the evidence presented by T. Canens, he should be banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - with that many socks? for sure. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've been protesting against his little antics for /years/ (accused of "trolling", of course) and had recently promised to hold my tongue, in good faith, to some of his supporters since the latest incarnation of "Br'er Rabbit". Oh, well. He is here to play whimsical power games and mock the community's trust and judgement. He doesn't care what those who disagree with him want. He scoffs at consensus, bullies his preferred changes in by consistently edit-warring, rudely attacks other editors, positively radiates bad faith to those not in his corner, canvasses off-wiki to his supporters to influence things here (and inform them of his socks, whom they enable)... the list goes on. This isn't just about socking (which he unsurprisingly has been doing again). He's an extremely disruptive editor who consistently proves it. That's why he is here. The bad outweighs the good by far: and the "good" of his edits changes at his quirky whims anyway (see the shift in "proper" citation styles enforced by this editor). Doc talk 05:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The above "sock farm" is misleading - most of the accounts are stale, were used serially rather than to abuse multiple accounts simultaneously, and they were retired by their owner. To bring them up without making it clear they are stale is likely to mislead people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is one of the socks unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I've tried very hard to work with Jack, but this is how he reacts when he doesn't get his way. Enough is enough. No more chances. —David Levy 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I can't support this. Jack is a good editor who made a stupid mistake. I've done that recently and I think a little time away should be given for circumventing a block definitely, but not an indef block. Maybe starting over the previous block and tacking on some extra time (a week total sounds good), but indef it's too permanent and hard as hell to get out of. Jack's work here is good and good outweighs bad here. A punishment is needed, but indef and the banhammer isn't the answer. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Comment It appears (from past behaviour), Jack is going to keep editing Wikipedia, whether he's indeffed or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  How many mistakes should we be excusing here? And how can you excuse sockpuppeting? And not just sockpuppeting, but sockpuppeting after the sockpuppet was blocked, even. Silverseren^C 06:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think NH is excusing it here, just questioning the severity of the resulting sanctions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  ...questioning the severity when he's sockpuppeted twice in succession in the same day? For a user who has a past history of sockpuppeting and other violations, to the point of it going all the way to Arbcom and him getting sanctioned for it? Do you really think a measly week-long block matches that? Silverseren^C 06:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's for NH to answer - I was just pointing out that NH was not *excusing* it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think being blocked is being blocked. You don't go get another account or an already known sock and sign in. You sit it out. He should be punished for that. I just think an indef block is overboard.

  @Silver seren: I just threw a week out there (I'm not an admin, so I don't know what the punishment is). Even two weeks to a month would be sufficient. Indef is just too much. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Jack was unbanned on the condition that he edit via a single account. Why should his violation of this restriction (made worse by the fact that the additional accounts were undisclosed and used to evade multiple blocks) not result in the ban's reinstatement? —David Levy 06:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  That I wasn't aware of. I don't go anywhere near ArbCom (gives me a headache), but I still think his good work outweighs a bad deed. I am not saying he shouldn't be let "off the hook" for it, I am saying he shouldn't be indef-blocked. Whatever length of time the community choses, just indef to me is too much. Indef plus a ban is overkill. Just the way I feel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This all goes to prove that despite the widespread agreement that editors' good contributions should not excuse bad behavior, said widespread agreement only holds up in the abstract; once an actual editor is involved, we're back to letting good work get in the way of removing a problem editor from the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  That I wasn't aware of.
  Did you oppose this proposal without reading it?
  Indef plus a ban is overkill. Just the way I feel.
  Again, Jack already was banned. His unbanning carries an explicit one-account editing restriction. Jack refuses to abide by this condition (which he's repeatedly violated in one of the worst ways possible), so why should he remain unbanned? —David Levy 06:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  NH has said what he had to say. He does not need to be questioned further about how or why he "voted" here, IMHO. Doc talk 07:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  When an editor expresses unawareness of information included in the proposal that he/she just opposed, follow-up is justified. —David Levy 07:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  NH is one of many friends of Merridew who are good editors, and are unlikely to change their opinion of him. I'm surprised more haven't come forth already. He's not going to vote to support the ban, so let's allow him a little consideration, is all I'm saying... Doc talk 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I respect Neutralhomer's opinion. I merely want to ensure that it's an informed one. It appears that Neutralhomer opposed the proposal without reading it or becoming acquainted with key facts. —David Levy 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  The most informed ones have yet to weigh in on this... Doc talk 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did read the original post here by T. Canens, just wasn't aware of the ArbCom decision. I don't go to ArbCom, it gives me a headache. Too much like politics (which also give me headaches). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did read the original post here by T. Canens, just wasn't aware of the ArbCom decision.
  It's mentioned several times in that post. —David Levy 07:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  If you are actually friends don't you have a conflict of interest? I'm not sure that friends posting in these threads is actually useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ummm... no. There's certainly no COI, and anyone can comment on these threads. Doc talk 08:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  @Eraserhead1: No, Jack and I are not actual friends. I wouldn't know the guy if he knocked on my door right now. Just someone I have worked with here on Wikipedia and someone I think does good work. That's all. Sheesh, didn't think this would cause a shit storm. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Doc that there's no conflict of interest. Even if Jack and you were actual friends, that wouldn't bar you from commenting. —David Levy 08:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I can't agree. This isn't and wasn't meant as a personal attack on Neutalhomer, plenty of other people have done the same, I'm sure including myself. It is clearly the case that people support (and oppose) editors continued presence on Wikipedia above and beyond the level when they should do, and this leads to our ability to work out whether editors should stay on the project to be the most contentious and problem fraught aspect of the entire project - and almost certainly the part that drives editors away the most.

  It would be much healthier if people who know and collaborate with editors (both in agreement and disagreement) take a step back and let more neutral people make a judgement - ultimately if it goes wrong an appeal can be made to the Arbitration Committee and they are usually pretty competent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Input from those "who know and collaborate with editors (both in agreement and disagreement)" can be quite valuable, provided that we duly consider its source(s). —David Levy 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think, at this point, it matters if I have a COI or not. The Yays outnumber the Nays 4 to 1 (maybe more). This is a snow support. Any further discussion of my possible COI is pretty much moot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  No problem and that seems sensible, my point wasn't meant to criticise you individually :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support The irony is that many of Jack's recent article-related contributions have been very good. But this is totally unacceptable conduct, and clearly justifies a community ban. People who behave like this aren't welcome. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support the serial socking to evade a block shows a complete disregard for the "rulz" of the community. Add to that repeated trolling at WP:TFA/R where he keeps referring to "R[a]ulz", and where he changes the formatting of TFA without discussion (see User talk:Dabomb87. I have been considering either filing a user conduct RFC or a more focused arbitration request, and should one of his cohorts unblock him, I will file said focused request at ArbCom, with complete knowledge of what has been happening at TFAR that I did not have last time. --Rschen7754 06:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict) A person who knowingly and deliberately violates Wikipedia policies demonstrates a total contempt for rules and regulations and cannot be trusted with any Wikipedia policies - not even those that apply to content however good their edits might have been. There should be no 3rd chances for any sockpuppetry and most certainly not on such a blatant scale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support There was never a reason to unblock thinking his behavior pattern would change, since no there was no indication that it ever would, and this proves it. Regards, — Moe ε 07:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support how many chances, and how much community time are we supposed to waste on individual editors? The majority of users avoid being blocked at all, and the vast majority avoid Arbcom cases. While obviously a first time block shouldn't be indefinite, we don't need to offer chance after chance after chance once an initial block or two has passed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know this will be unpopular, but a special case should be made here. An acknowledgement of the recent catastrophic failure (and its causes) that has led to these events should be made, and hopefully be sufficient reason for not issuing the requested ban (especially if the user were to acknowledge some remorse)? Just in the accounts listed above, the user in question has made over 56,000 edits, and in my experience has always been extraordinarily helpful, hard-working, and dedicated in building an encyclopaedia for our readers (and the user's technical expertise is second to none). Without this user's inspiration and assistance, Wikipedia will be a darker shade of grey. Give us a hundred Br'er Rabbits and we could finish Wikipedia. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  08:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  There already is a hundred Br'er Rabbits, that's the problem. Being a productive user in the article namespace and having some technical skills is great and all without blatantly violating his own terms of being here. Regards, — Moe ε 09:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm tempted to quote Henry IV Part I here, "Banish not him... banish plump Jack, and banish all the world." (And no doubt many people would quote Hal back at me: "I do. I will.") Has Jack given any explanation for why he has done this? Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I know you all, and will awhile uphold

The unyoked humour of your idleness: Yet herein will I imitate the sun,

Who doth permit the base contagious clouds

To smother up his beauty from the world,

That, when he please again to be himself,

Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,

By breaking through the foul and ugly mists

Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.

If all the year were playing holidays,

To sport would be as tedious as to work;

But when they seldom come, they wish'd for come,

And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.

So, when this loose behavior I throw off

And pay the debt I never promised,

By how much better than my word I am,

By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;

And like bright metal on a sullen ground,

My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,

Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes

Than that which hath no foil to set it off.

I'll so offend, to make offence a skill;

Redeeming time when men think least I will.(Henry IV Part I)

But I don't quite think this applies to a sock who needs to create 100 accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Out, damned sock! out, I say! One; two, a hundred: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so many accounts in him?"--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not seven, but seventy and seven. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Request if someone has the time, could they provide some sort pretty table or graph of the overlap of all these sock puppet accounts? I seem to remember that an argument was put forward that he did hold himself to single accounts for long periods, and I'd like to see if that's true. If no one else can, I'll try when I have some time. Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This may help (it's also linked above): User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph. Rgrds. --64.85.214.195 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for that IP. I've been vaguely following the Jack case for years, though I don't believe I really have commented. From what I've seen, Jack has rubbed some people up the wrong way and they appear to be baying for his blood. This then compounds with the general community view that there is no smoke without fire, and sooner or later someone will reasonably put forward a request to have him banned. Clearly a large contingent of the community agree that a ban is right at this juncture, and it may be that it goes through, but all in all, I oppose community banning. Socking requires the abusive use of multiple accounts, and I do not see abusive use between May and this weekend. Yes, his actions this weekend were not acceptable and deserved a block. In fact, I expect he will be de-facto banned, as no one will be willing to unblock him, but community banned? No. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  I have updated and transcluded it below for everyone's convenience. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Activity mostly before May 2011 (transclusion of User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph)

All data: 1 January 2004 - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012- 1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31 1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec 1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec 1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec 1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun - 31 Dec Davenbelle (talk · contribs) Not registered Edits Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits No more edits No more edits No more edits Blocked1 Blocked Stalks My RFC RFAR 1 Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks No more edits Moby Dick (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Edits Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked * Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks 57 Days 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits Edits Edits Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM Barong (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits Blocked Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong No stalking in 2004 as I was not registered. In 2004 He was your average casual good user. One thing to point out his attention focused on Bali and Indonesia related articles which comes as no surprise. The above graph may fool you to think that Moby Dick had made edits between 26 April - 2 May 2007. However Moby Dick had made his last edit on 10 April from the account User:Diyarbakir. The marked time frame is community discussion which Moby Dick did not take part from a known account. Moby Dick did make a single edit from the account User:Moby Dick on 27 March 2007 which was the first one from that account since 18 December 2006 and that was the last one ever from that account. First contact with Jack Merridew was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) on 27 July 2007. The article series was also of interest to Davenbelle: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek 31 March 2008 blocks of accounts was per this edit Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked briefly between 2 and 4 May 2008 Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion on 9 December 2008. Data broken down by year 1 January - 31 December 2004 1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31 Davenbelle (talk · contribs) Not registered Edits Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs) Not registered Moby Dick (talk · contribs) Not registered Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) * Not registered Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) Not registered Barong (talk · contribs) Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong No stalking in 2004 as I was not registered. In 2004 He was your average casual good user. One thing to point out his attention focused on Bali and Indonesia related articles which comes as no surprise. 1 January - 31 December 2005 1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec Davenbelle Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits Stalks My RFC RFAR 1 Note to Cool Cat Not registered Moby Dick Not registered Edits Diyarbakir * Not registered Jack Merridew Not registered Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January - 31 December 2006 1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec Davenbelle No more edits Note to Cool Cat Not registered Stalks No more edits Moby Dick Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days Diyarbakir * Not registered Stalks 57 Days Jack Merridew Not registered Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January - 31 December 2007 1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec Davenbelle No more edits Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked Diyarbakir * 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days Jack Merridew Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong The above graph may fool you to think that Moby Dick had made edits between 26 April - 2 May 2007. However Moby Dick had made his last edit on 10 April from the account User:Diyarbakir. The marked time frame is community discussion which Moby Dick did not take part from a known account. Moby Dick did make a single edit from the account User:Moby Dick on 27 March 2007 which was the first one from that account since 18 December 2006 and that was the last one ever from that account. First contact with Jack Merridew was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) on 27 July 2007. The article series was also of interest to Davenbelle: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek 1 January - 31 December 2008 1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec Davenbelle No more edits Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Blocked Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 31 March 2008 blocks of accounts was per this edit Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked briefly between 2 and 4 May 2008 Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion on 9 December 2008. 1 January - 31 December 2009 (incomplete) 1 Jan - 31 Dec Davenbelle Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January - 31 December 2010 (incomplete) 1 Jan - 31 Dec Davenbelle Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January 2011 - 1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun - Davenbelle Blocked Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM Barong Not registered Edits Blocked Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong

Account overlaps, May 2011 to present

May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 Aug 2011 Sept 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 Sept 2012 Oct 2012 Barong (talk · contribs) Edits 7–15 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Battle of Masada (talk · contribs) Edits 23 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits White-bellied Sea Eagle (talk · contribs) Edits 23–24 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Paperbark Flycatcher (talk · contribs) Edits 24 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Waterbuck (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 14–16, 19–23, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Nantucket sleighride (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 16–17 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Il fugitivo (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 18, 20–21, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits 1942 Porsche (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 20 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Czolgosz (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 22 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Puputan (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 23, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Nyupat (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 23, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits The Inheritance of Loss (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 24 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Stone Town (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 25–26 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Uncontroversial Obscurity (talk · contribs) No edits No edits Edits 18–24 July No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 7–9 April No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Sitti Noerbaja (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits Edits 13–15 August No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Victoria and Albert (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits Edits 19–26 August No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 28 March No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits The Call of the Wild (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits Edits 25–31 August Edits 1–3, 11–15, 22–23, 26, 29–30 Sept Edits 1, 6 Oct Edits 8, 15–17 Nov No edits No edits No edits Edits 19, 28, 30 March Edit 20 April No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Portuguese Man o' War (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 7–30 Sept Edits 1–4 Oct No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 8–31 Oct Edits Edits Edits Edits Edits 9, 17–19, 22–28 March No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits One Ton Depot (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 8–29 Oct Edits 1, 11 Nov No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Alarbus (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits Edits Edits Edits Edits 1–28 March No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Blue-bottle (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 18–19 Nov No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 19–31 May Edits Edits Edits Edits Edits 1–12 Oct Br'er Rabbit bot (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 8 June Edit 20 July No edits No edits No edits Br'er Rabbi (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 15, 19 Sept No edits Br'er Bear (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 13 Oct Tar Baby (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 31 July Edits 1–4 Aug Edits 15 Sept Edits 12–13 Oct

• Support The conditions of the unban request have been broken: "edit from one account only"; "avoid all disruptive editing". That ban should therefore be reinstated. Warden (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Appears to be an incurable case of ducktitis. WP:BLOCKEVASION and verbal abuse of admins are the last straw. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Malleus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Frankly I've always been surprised he was allowed back in. Sockpuppetry is one thing, to delibrately to expose your accounts when you're fully aware of the implications of that and amount of time which you'd waste is quite another. (I read and saw that at around the time it was happening.) I would have fully supported it if arbcom or even the WMF had said enough is enough and told him not to come back for a very long period of time. But he was let back in, despite all the problems he's caused, I'd be fine with that if he abided by the conditions. It's clear he did not. I'm not aware of the entire history here (I've read bits and pieces thorough the years), I'm not even aware of what precisely lead to him creating the Br'er Bear account, I don't think it matters. Whatever others may have done that contributed to any messes he got in to, no one held a gun to his head and forced him to create and use all the accounts including the recent ones, behaviour which continued after the restriction. It seems clear whatever good work he does, in some areas he just can't abide by the communities expectations, he particularly has problems when things don't go his way. His repeated violations are severe enough that they warrant a community ban. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question: as this is a discussion is plausibly with ongoing much broader knock-on effects, should it be mentioned at the - like it or not - default en.wikipedia.org central notice board?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question Has Jack been invited to make a statement on his behalf? I'm not pretending it is likely to change the outcome, but I'm not comfortable weighing in without hearing what he has to say, if he wants to say something.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  He's been notified. On-wiki. I'm not sure if we're required to invite him off-wiki to this thread. Doc talk 13:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Jack's talk page access is not revoked. He can communicate logged into Br'er Rabbit, or as demonstrated earlier today, he can communicate logged in as a sock ([52]). If he wants someone to say something here on his behalf, all he has to do is say so on his talk page. God knows he knows how to do this.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  He added {{Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow}} to his talk page; interpret that as you will. Nobody Ent 15:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support; no editor should be allowed to consume so much community effort and time continually over the years – no matter how smart and funny they may be the rest of the time. Jack has had countless opportunities to let the past fade into obscurity, but it is clear that he enjoys being the center of the storm too much for that. Wikipedia could use fewer storms chasers. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; I also agree with Malleus and a couple others but I doubt it will matter at this point since the end result seems clear. I might feel differently if he had abused someone other than Raul whom they have history with but I also think this user has been more good than harm. Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Why is it acceptable to abuse any editor? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Well its not but being familiar with the case between them Raul hasn't been very cordial either. They have both done and said something things at the other that weren't very gentlemenly. Also having a fair bit of knowledge on having a user constantly hound and harass I can understand where, at a certain point you just don't care about being nice or polite to them anymore. So if the issues are between the 2 of them then that's one thing but if he starts abusing others that's something different. Kumioko (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I understand that Br'er Rabbit was involved in the baiting and bullying of User:GoodDay (who was previously one of the 400 most active people on Wikipedia), and he has posted in this ANI that "the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this", and "Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue". However, although he makes such statements about Kauffner, I believe that Br'er Rabbit has not been involved in Vietnamese diacritics at all. He deserves to be treated in the same way that he treats other people. Surely "Jack Merridew" was the most evil of the characters in "Lord of the Flies"?  LittleBen (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support for now, subject to Jack explaining why he created and used User:Tar Baby, after arbcom told him to edit from only one account. Maybe Jack a very good reason, but I look at the contributions and can't see any reason. They are not controversial topics or dangerous to edit or anything like that. I can understand the creation of User:Br'er Bear in a fit of anger after being blocked. But why was he using the Tar Baby account for months? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Post arbcom, and without getting their approval first, what reason could be enough? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  For example, harassment or legal threats in real life due to editing those articles. Or trying to edit calmly in some completely separated topic because of continued intrusions in his main account (although I see that he has done this before, and he ended creating trouble also in those accounts?). Or making a clean start (which he hasn't done, since he kept editing in his main account). There might be a reason we haven't thought of. If he has a really good reason for that account then we should at least hear it before locking and throwing the key to the bottom of the sea. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Full support The unban conditions were clear, and both of those key conditions have been clearly broken. It's a shame that the stupidity of actions overwhelms the usually positive contributions, but the bullshit has to stop, now. dangerouspanda 15:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Whatever mistakes and missteps he's made, Jack/Br'er does a lot of great work and is a clear net positive. Do I think he should stick to one account? Yes, absolutely, as that was (for right or wrong) a condition imposed by ArbCom. Do I think he should be blocked or banned if he doesn't stick to one account? Frankly, no. I have yet to see the case that he's actually doing anything nefarious with these additional usernames, like vote-stacking or any of the other behavior that our sock puppetry policy was designed to prevent. Looking at the contributions of these extra accounts, I see constructive edits. In the absence of some evidence that Jack is actually harming the encyclopedia with one of these extra usernames, I cannot possibly support a ban of any kind. 28bytes (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  So calling the administrator that blocked him a fucking asshole is a net positive contribution with his alternate account? Regards, — Moe ε 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  The single act you've cited is not the "net" of contributions. Regards -76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This is not the first, nor the last edit he has made like this, only the most recent. Regards, — Moe ε 19:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  He has been blocked in the past, as he will be whenever conduct warrants, just as he is now. Regards - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  So you support the limit to a single account, but oppose any attempt to enforce that limit? --Nouniquenames 17:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, I don't support a limit to a single account. I edit with multiple accounts (disclosed on my userpage); lots of other editors, admins and even arbs have disclosed and undisclosed accounts that they edit with. Like those folks, Jack's other accounts are completely harmless, with the obvious exception of Br'er Bear, which was created a couple of days ago for an unwise but brief bit of venting. I don't accept, however, the idea that the only way to enforce a limit on multiple accounts is a community ban. What we have here is a generally productive editor, who dislikes being forced to play by different rules than the rest of us because of mistakes he made many years ago, who had a bad weekend and lashed out. I get that he rubs many people the wrong way, and has accumulated many detractors over the years, but I don't think a community ban is the commensurate response to what he's done. Block the "extra" accounts if the single-account limit must be enforced, give his main account a time-limited block if it's necessary to "punish" him for lashing out at the admin who blocked him for edit warring, but again, I think a community ban is a disproportionate response to what's happened. 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - in breach of his unban conditions, has wasted too many chances - enough is enough. GiantSnowman 15:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; Anybody who has worked with Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs) or Alarbus (talk · contribs) or Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) will know that they are a major net benefit to the encyclopedia. Check their contributions if you don't believe me. I can understand anyone's annoyance at his actions yesterday, but those are the actions of someone who tries to improve the encyclopedia and is hurt when blocked. I told ArbCom last year that further extending a restriction that was imposed in 2008 was unjust and simply gave his detractors a stick to beat him with. Here he is being beaten with exactly that stick. Is edit-warring wrong? Yes. Is evading a 48-hour block wrong? Yes. Is it right to hold someone's mistakes from five years ago against them still? No. If you think it will benefit the encyclopedia to community ban him for edit-warring and evading a 48-hour block, then go ahead. But be clear about what you're doing, what you gain, and what you lose. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Comment - It's the trust factor. The community doesn't trust Jack, anymore. One must now wonder, how many 'socks' has he created, since this AN report was filed? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  But continuing the restrictions is clearly valid when the editor has been continuing the same behavior for the last five years. --Rschen7754 18:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sure. But he hasn't been continuing the same behavior for the last five years. Jack Merridew edited constructively from a single account from when the ban was lifted in 2008 - being congratulated by ArbCom for a successful return from his ban in 2009 - until 2011 when ArbCom refused to lift the single-account-restriction merely because they wanted to show their muscle. They were warned that they were just painting a target on Jack's back, and it's no surprise to me that shots have now landed. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Rant. Sure, let's ban the indeffed editor cause he was "mean" to us once -- that helps Wikipedia how, exactly? Yea, he was "mean" to me due to the non-content nature of my contributions -- being older than 12 I ignored it. If he was such a problem to so many people while his was unblocked, where is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Br'er Rabbit? If Jack's interaction style has cause so much "drama," it's because non one knows what the damn rules are. Vandals, legal threats, and 3rr editors don't cause drama, they just get blocked because we know what the rules are. Rather than grave dancing an indef'd editor let's do something useful and put the work in at WP:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Oppose ban.Nobody Ent 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, but a substantial proportion of even the admin community is unable to handle their decisions being challenged as per the rules without getting incredibly upset about it - the situation is bad enough that my comment above saying that you shouldn't challenge admin decisions unless they are gross is probably reasonable. If that is the position we are in we cannot allow general incivility and expect people to "just deal with it" - I don't have to put up with people insulting me (in a non-clearly non-serious way) in the real world.

  Basically every time I have challenged an admin legitimately and within the rules they have clearly got upset about it - so much so that I made a statement above about only challenging gross violations of the rules to avoid conflict in future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The rules were clear--he was unbanned on the condition that he use only one account. He was using two accounts since July, which is after the unblock date, and that's a direct violation of his unban conditions. Time to nuke from orbit for contempt of community. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC) ETA: On contemplation, probably wouldn't be a bad idea for a CU to check for any sleeper socks, too. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Continual abuse of multiple accounts. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per User:28bytes. Creating "playful" socks, which are not used contrary to WP:SOCK doesn't seem to me to be something we should ban someone for. That said, I think it's fairly clear that the editor has worn out the community's patience concerning the leeway we typically give editors regarding this. So with that in mind (and with keeping the arbcom restriction in mind), I would support unblocking from indef if, and only if the editor lists EVERY sock (stale, inactive, whatever)), accompanied by the diff of that sock being listed. (But not through using a category, because a blanked page would effectively remove the sock from the category.) This is merely following current sock policy/guidelines. Otherwise, the editor should remain indef blocked. - jc37 17:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  "Playful"? Is that how we're describing block evasion now? —David Levy 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's how we're describing the creation of the other accounts. Should I assume you actually read what Jc37's wrote, and then maliciously chose to misinterpret it? Gold Hat (talk · contribs) was created as a playful sock and I'm pretty sure Tar Baby (another character from the Br'er Rabbit stories) was created in the same vein. Do you really, honestly think Tar Baby was created just to evade a block? --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  RexxS, thank you for your comments. You're spot on what I was thinking of. Though I do think br'er bear was a block evading sock, it was done in such a way as to be very obvious who it is. Anyway, that said, I'm not reading DL's comments as "malicious", or misinterpreting my comments, but merely surprise (flabbergasted shock?), and requesting clarification.

  Hi David. Thanks for asking for clarification. My read of this proposal is that it hinges on socking AND block evasion. I don't support a ban for most of the types of socking that the editor engages in. We have editors creating alternate accounts all the time. The problem really is that, at this point, people shouldn't have to be "sleuthing" to try to figure out if it's him or not. That's just become a complete waste of the community's time. As for the block evasion, he absolutely should be (and is) blocked for it. And escalate the durations, to be sure. But I disagree with others in that I don't think it's reached the "indef" stage yet. - jc37 18:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the assumption of good faith and clarification.  :) —David Levy 19:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  See how much better comments like this make the discussion ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Jc37 referred to "creating 'playful' socks" (not to "playfully creating socks"). To me, "playful sock" means "sock used playfully", which doesn't accurately describe block evasion. (And I now know that Jc37 didn't intend to imply otherwise.)
  I don't know what Jack had in mind when creating the "Tar Baby" account, but I have a difficult time believing that it was for his personal amusement (particularly given the fact that he later used it to evade a block). And as Jc37 noted, Jack created the "Br'er Bear" account while blocked (and then used it to evade said block). —David Levy 19:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  You know, when I wrote that, I wasn't actually thinking about the distinction between "creating 'playful' socks" (not to "playfully creating socks"). But in thinking about it now, to my mind it's more like: Someone creates a cricket bat to go have some fun. If later they use that cricket bat to assault someone, should we outlaw cricket bats? On the converse, it's not a great analogy, because I can already hear the response: "Maybe not, but that individual shouldn't be allowed to use cricket bats again." When in truth socking is more like: what number is on the player's jersey (such as in football). If the player notes that all the various jersey numbers he has used and is using are him, then who cares if they have a different number every time they play? Blocking the user (not allowing them to go on the field - to extend the analogy), when they use an alternate number to go on the field in violation of a current block, is always an option. But I just don't think that this is enough to ban him for life from cricket (or football). - jc37 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Are community bans "for life" or just until the community decides otherwise? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'll answer your question with a question: Are cricket or football bans "for life", or is that merely a euphemism for "...until/unless the relevant powers-that-be decide otherwise"? - jc37 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  You did not answer my question but in sports "bans for life" are termed "bans for life." So, are you saying that community bans on Wikipedia are not for life? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did respond, actually. I'm sorry that you appear to not have understood it. - jc37 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Really? You choose to give a simple question an overly complex analogy answer, and then innuendo insult the editor when they don't get your analogy. Do you have any basis for the assumption ASW is familiar with football or cricket bans? Nobody Ent 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Try again. No insult was made nor intended. But I will offer you a suggestion. You might want to dial back the accusations a bit. WP:AGF might go long way if you gave it a chance... - jc37 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This analogy makes scant sense. First, we primarily know a player by their name, not by their jersey number. When we discuss something about, say, Jeremy Lin, we talk about "Jeremy Lin", not "that guy wearing jersey #XX". We usually know editors, however, by their username/jersey number. Second, data about a player is tracked under his name. Changing jersey numbers have little effect on how the data is tracked. Data about an editor is tracked under his username, and repeatedly switching accounts makes it difficult to track someone's editing history. A more apt analogy would be someone who changed their name every time they play. I doubt that the commentators would be too happy with such an athlete ("what's this guy's name today? John? Jack? Nick?"). T. Canens (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I personally get tired of trying to keep track of usernames myself. New accounts aside, people have their accounts renamed all the time. But happy or not, I don't think it's "ban-worthy". - jc37 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Until the community decides otherwise. Nobody Ent 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The amount of excuses being made for YEARS of sockpuppetry, block evasion, edit warring and attacks made by this user is, frankly, embarrassing for each person defending him. We've wasted far too much time on this editor, and it is clear that there is no other solution that will ever work. Resolute 17:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I wouldn't oppose a time-limited ban or block, because there really is no excuse for evading a block, and even less for doing so to abuse the blocking admin and attempt to settle a years-old grudge. However, Jack is an overwhelmingly constructive contributor—he goes round quietly making improvements to articles. Improvements that, in many case, may not be immediately obvious to most editors, but which greatly assist our readers and re-users. However, he needs to learn that sometimes it's best to just walk away, and this is what gets him into trouble. This has improved recently, as he has surrounded himself with wise editors who are able to give him good advice, and is likely to continue to improve if or when he returns from the current block. A site ban would achieve little. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Plenty of other people edit well without behaving badly. Why don't we encourage those editors? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Conversely, editorial mediocrity is too rarely and too softly admonished in "friendly" people. And also by "friendly" people, who are in part recognized as "friendly" precisely because they never tell anyone their editing sucks, no matter how much it sucks. A culture of overly rigid boundaries is itself a net detriment, since any transgression of the golden rule is considered negative. Innocuously looking over a fellow contributor's editing history now becomes "stalking" and "harassment". Telling someone in so many (true!) words that their editing "sucks" is a cardinal sin. Seems about right. --87.78.52.199 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)— 87.78.52.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Jack Merridew is a prolific contributor with both good and bad aspects. Considering both the good and the bad, is he a net positive contributor to the writing of a encyclopedia or a net negative? If he is a net negative, indeffing him makes sense. But, if he is a net positive, we should consider simply giving him a time out and then trying to retain him. Cardamon (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock masters aren't known for taking time outs. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Net negative. Even while he was being "productive" someone had to keep an eye on him because he kept pulling stunts at TFA. See User talk:Dabomb87. --Rschen7754 17:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Jack has wasted too many chances to be here and the community does not trust him anymore. This amount of sockpuppeteering is the final straw. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Suppoer, but with an outside note. There are way too many loopholes in the socking policy, and it needs to be tightened majorly. The fact that you can even argue that some of those socks were fine says that the policy is crap and has to be rewritten. Wizardman 18:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although, initially, his checking of new cite templates, Template:Fcite and Template:Cite_quick, had been helpful in pinpointing format differences (which were later fixed), on balance, it seems he pinpointed problems to prove himself "right" rather than to help improve templates for Wikipedia editors/readers. He really crossed the "bright line" of cite-template rules when he edited article "Taylor Swift" (edit-183) to axe fast {cite_quick} (designed to match wp:CS1 style) and inserted non-compatible {Vcite_web}, as a totally different format, which per WP:CITEVAR, requires prior consensus for use in an article. However, the final straw was when he also pulled {cite_quick}, with no discussion, from 9-time featured article "Barack Obama" to exceed the template limit and re-break the bottom 14 templates (3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and the wp:FA/GA interwiki links to other-language wikipedias). Then, he tinkered with hopeless changes to "fix" the cratered article, and even tried "dropping a trivial template:okina" (see: edit-708), just tinkering with a frequently-viewed featured article. Those actions are just too reckless for the work on a 9-time featured article, and too risky for the WP community. FYI: To reduce bias, I avoided reading other comments, but will now.-Wikid77 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support In mine understanding, the Arbcom decision didn't allow "playful" socks, it allowed one account. They, or Jack, may not have done harm; indeed, some claim he is a net positive to the project; anyone who cannot abide by community rules, though, cannot be a net positive. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 18:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been thinking about how to respond here all day, and at the end of it, I have to oppose a community ban. Has Jack used sock accounts? Yes, but they were openly him and clearly no deception was intended. Does it look like he's hit the self-destruct button? Yes. But people have bad spells, and what has Jack actually done here that's so bad? He's openly insulted a couple of admins, but I really don't think that's a big deal - if we can't take an occasional angry outburst, we shouldn't be admins. Long term he's been a great contributor, and many of the most creative people can react emotionally to events. My view is that a major part of the job of admins is to assist our creative contributors, not to police them - technically it might be a subtle difference, but it's a big difference in terms of attitude. I certainly support a block until such a time as Jack has come down from his current anger, but I cannot support a community ban on an editor who has contributed far more than I am ever likely to. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Agree. And thanks: I think you conveyed this better than I managed to : ) - jc37 18:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  What has he actually done lately? You seem to be overlooking the edit warring and the disruption of the Obama article which is subject to article probation. Warden (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Also see disruption at TFA. --Rschen7754 18:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I am aware of both those things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per 28bytes and Boing said Zebedee. Any ban discussion should happen at arbcom, so that we can actually examine the evidence of Jack's disruption in detail, and determine if a ban is warranted or needed, without the pile-on/witch-hunt mentality of ANI. It seems to be that this all stemmed from a simple case of edit warring, which seems rather minor to spark an indef site ban. -Scottywong| spout _ 18:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  If this request is declined, I will strongly consider filing a second ArbCom request. --Rschen7754 18:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Arbcom is usually pretty level headed about these things, so that seems a good next step if this fails. That said it seems pretty bureaucratic if we have to go to Arbcom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  No comment on banning or non-banning, but I don't understand your comment, Scotty. Ban discussions happen here at WP:AN all the time; why shouldn't this one? Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  The user under discussion is currently under arbcom sanctions (to refrain from using multiple accounts), it seems appropriate to discuss his possible violations of those sanctions at arbcom, to determine if they were violated, and whether the violations warrant an outright ban. -Scottywong| express _ 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x3Oppose per Malleus and 28bytes. No question in my mind whether he is a net positive to the project.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I really don't think he deserves any more chances. He's already been Arbcom sanctioned in the past for using sockpuppets and twice violated that sanction. And now he's block evaded twice in succession on the same day. I don't really care how much material he adds to the encyclopedia, it's easy to see that he makes the editing environment disruptive because of his attitude toward others and his mood swings of vandalism. This is really the last straw. Silverseren^C 18:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support—this user has been abusive towards other editors, has socked in defiance of the restrictions placed upon him, and most recently, engaged in edit warring. No amount of good works can overcome the blatant disregard for our community's rules and values, and this user should be shown the door. He's exhausted a second chance, and a third is not likely. Imzadi 1979 → 18:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support  The editor is already site banned, this just restores the site ban.  But the list of sockpuppets posted today at 16:40 puts a new perspective on things.  JM has been openly challenging the admins, who on an ongoing basis have either lacked the skill, will, tools, or organization to control the situation.  Perhaps we should be negotiating for peace.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I have worked with Jack a few times and I agree that he can do some good editing. Unfortunately, I don't believe in the idea of a "net positive" here. That's like saying "it's ok to murder someone if you just gave 1.5 billion in donations to charity". That makes no sense to me. Just because you do good work does not give you the right to circumvent policies regarding how to edit, or how to handle blocks, or even worse in trying to get around sanctions that are placed on you with instruction not to do certain things (like create socks). There are only so many chances anyone gets, and it appears, sadly, that Jack has exhausted his chances with what appears to be a deliberate slap in the face of his fellow editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing.--John (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This entire mess went down the tubes far too quickly IMO. I understand that others can make some sort of case here for sanctions, but I tend to think along the line that Malleus, Boing, and 28bytes are. My understanding is that the Br'er Bear post was to his TALK page of the Rabbit account which he had locked up. I think there's far too much value to be lost here, so I can't support a quick "ban this user" via. an AN thread. I'm also a bit unclear as to the sanctions that were in place, as I believe that many of those were to be lifted, and Br'er granted equal status. Some of us have alternate accounts, and it is permitted in policy. I would want to see some response from Br'er, some explanation from Burpelson, some discussion from Courcelles, and some clarification from Arbcom before I would even consider supporting such a ban. — ChedZILLA 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No editor is irreplaceable - WP is big enough so that other people, some of whom have not edited yet, will step up and take over what ever good work he's done. Look how much insane drama this has caused. I concur - no third chances. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support No need for the games, and there was really no reason for his original ban to be lifted. The important remaining question is whether we can effectively block him at the IP level, because his history shows that he will have no respect for our blocks.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons most people who support are providing. Long term troublemaker, good edits not an excuse, thumbing his nose at sockpuppetry policy, etc. McJEFF ^(talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I say this somewhat hesitantly because as much as Jack pissed me off years ago, in the last few I've seen him as a generally net positive (if sometimes only by a bit). But his inability to play by the rules and behave civilly is just too problematic. Being a net positive doesn't excuse all the stupid stunts he pulls. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support As the years go by, he keeps getting away with things he knows he shouldn't be doing, and even flaunts it on his user pages at times. I see he had the history deleted as well as the page for his first known account at User:Jack Merridew. Used to brag about being a master of sockpuppets at places. He has 44 accounts listed at [53] which he admitted to at one point. There was also a lot of them listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jack Merridew earlier today, but I see someone went and emptied that. He kept breaking Arbcom rules. Even when he was blocked before, he just kept editing as different IP addresses. Dream Focus 21:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I restored all of the user pages that had been deleted: the categories have been repopulated.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - please forgive me that I am unable to read all of the above: I see great efforts there - in time and writing skill - to sink a scuttled ship. I fail to see how Wikipedia would be improved by a ban. - Dabomb was mentioned several times, was he notified? - TFA disruption was cited, the so-called disruption was documented recently, face the facts please. I wish more talk pages would look like this. Too late, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Again, this fails to address the numerous violations of policy. Notified Dabomb87 by talk page and email. --Rschen7754 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of the word scuttle? The whole thread doesn't look like it.

Do you understand the meaning of the word provocation?

If you understand that I care more about people and content than policy, you are quite right. The cleaning lady of TFA (see my user for more) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. In spite of everything, I still believe he is a net positive to this project. He has taught me so much stuff, such as what's the best browser and why, how to use an external editor for things such as search and replace, how to use scripts, how to save tons of time editing. He has a really great memory and a lot of coding chops. He has to figure out a way to be nicer to people, even when they disagree with him. The socking has to stop, as that's what has destroyed the trust of the community, more than anything else that's happened. — Dianna (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The substance of most of the opposes seems to be a flat statement that the rules (which apply to all of us, as far as I know) and specific sanctions (which apply to Jack, according to Arbcom) don't apply to Jack. No one appears to be contesting that his behavior recently has involved edit warring, block evasion, and personal attacks; the people opposing the ban at this point just want to nullify the jury such that Jack won't be held responsible for what everyone agrees was his deliberate flouting of multiple policies and restrictions. As for me, I believe there has to be a line past which disruptive editors can't be allowed; if we decide that Jack needn't abide by WP:SOCK and all the other rules he's violated this week, why would he believe he needs to follow any of our rules in the future? Why would anyone believe they needed to follow any rules or restrictions, if all you need to do is break them long enough and loudly enough, and make enough "good edits" to cancel out anything up to (perhaps including?) murder, to get the community to publicly affirm your being above the rest of us? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Enough is enough. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC).
• Support - this has been a long time in coming --Nouniquenames 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Further comment Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3#Recidivism says that "Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions." --Rschen7754 22:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not comfortable wit the comments so far which seem to want to turn the editor's overall contributions into an equation. Net positive or Net negative seem beside the point to me. Michelangelo may be considered to create some of the greatest works of art. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be sanctioned if that be deemed necessary. This shouldn't be about piling things on a balance. If someone evades a block, then sure, ever increasing blocks is the typical way to go. But a community ban is a whole other thing. - jc37 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  But it isn't even an escalation; a ban already was imposed, and it was lifted on the explicit condition that Jack edit via a single account. He's continually violated that restriction (and other policies in the process), so I see no reason why the ban shouldn't be reinstated. —David Levy 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'd feel more comfortable with the re-placing of an arbcom ban being left to arbcom. I'll need to re-read the case, but my recollection is that the intent seems to have been that he shouldn't use socks in violation to WP:SOCK. And AFAIK, he didn't, until now when, I agree that it could be argued, he did when evading the block. Otherwise, I don't think the multiple socks violated WP:SOCK, and therefore, the editor didn't necessarily cross the spirit of the restriction. All that said, I would have been more comfortable if the editor had asked arbcom for clarification on this before creating the various socks. But anyway, I'd prefer that these questions were dealt with by arbcom in this case. - jc37 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  You're kidding, right? Which part of "User:Barong [one of his numerous accounts] is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion" do you think leaves room for "playful socks"? Our intent was certainly not to allow him any alternate account whatsoever – and he most certainly knew that. — Coren ^(talk) 01:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Nope, not kidding. And your comments (and white cat's below) re-affirm to me that this is something that arbcom should deal with. - jc37 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, (with some regret) though Jack has made some useful contributions his methods, approach and attitude towards others are not usually in the community spirits. One who does good things through bad means is as bad as one who does bad things. Whilst the outcome of some of Jack's edits might be good, the way he achieves them isn't. Unfortunately he's created more work for others deliberately as a way of venting anger and the number of discussions and time and effort that's been used to resolve threads about Jack are beyond ridiculous. This is a message to others than editing goes much beyond the final outcome. Its the spirit of team work and observing the community views. The community has spoken, enough is enough. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a classic case of "popular user can't follow the rules that all of us are supposed to follow, his hangers-on and buddies all show up to inevitably argue that his contributions mean he should be above the rules." No, no, and no. Nobody around here's irreplaceable-- whatever he's been up to, someone just as useful will eventually come along to do it. When will the community learn? Jtrainor (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps when the entire community sees everything exactly as you do. Until then it would be nice to see a bit more good faith when assumptions are at core. No one has here argued that anyone should be above the rules. In fact the rules allow for civil discourse and the consideration of dissenting views. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Friends and hangers on always seem to find it difficult to accept how things really are in discussions like this - and they should make an effort not to participate with !voting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Wrong. No civilized model would exclude supporting arguments, and "friends and hangers on" have just as much right to comment here as anyone else. We don't silence people because of some imagined COI. Doc talk 07:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) People who can't contribute without placing labels on participants who express an opposing view should be required to remove their head from their ass before posting a comment. But that is simply my opinion. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  I have made no implication that everyone who has opposed this is a friend of Jack. That said if people are friends or enemies, they generally don't offer any value to these discussions. If you can't get any support from someone who isn't your friend then you don't deserve support and vice versa. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- per Dianaa. Despite everything that's happened, I still consider JM to be a net positive on this project. Reyk _YO! 02:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for clear violation of numerous policies and the disruption caused by his disputes with other editors. wctaiwan (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Weak support - The edit warring, personal attacks, and ArbCom motion violation each deserve escalating blocks, but not a site ban. JM has been an amazing contributor over the years. The only reason I'm leaning towards a support on this one is because the behaviour needs to stop. He created the Tar Baby account not for disruption, but it appears for the sake of violating the ArbCom ruling. The Br'er Bear account was made for the purpose of evading a block. It's not specifically because he did those things, but because this kind of behaviour shows no sign of stopping. Ishdarian 03:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately. I had thought Jack Merridew had shown a vast degree of improvement since being unbanned, but lately in his edits as Br'er Rabbit, he has been behaving in such an immature manner that it's become more than just a distraction. I think a lengthy break from the project would help him reflect on how he could reconcile with the community in the event that he is unblocked, and will also allow us to continue sorting through drama without him serving as a frequent distraction. I'm sorry it had to come to this. Kurtis (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support—this person has made many useful edits and seems talented and knowledgeable, but has more importantly, and in my opinion, consistently contributed to degrading the quality of debate and conversation on Wikipedia. Is regularly sarcastic and dismissive towards editors s/he disagrees with ([54] a single random diff, lolz); I read the constant leet-speak edit summaries as a sign of disrespect towards others (maybe it's just me). It's one thing for anyone to be "uncivil" occasionally, with or without bad words. It's another thing for Wikipedia to put up with editors with patterned behavior that reduces the quality of discourse. I hate to admit this, but I have reduced editing Wikipedia and am currently leaning towards "retirement" (yawn) in part because running into these "types" destroys the enjoyment of the hobby. All me? apparently not. Been editing for years, first community ban discussion I've ever participated in, I think. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but "fucking asshole", mwah. An admin should be able to handle that. Jack, or whoever he was originally, is a net positive. Riggr Mortis, it's somewhat ironic that I post this just below your comment, only a few days after I was unexcusably rude to you; I hope you read my apology. I can't blame you if you think I fit right into that reduction of the quality of discourse; I can tell you I'll try to do better. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but many admins cannot handle per policy WP:ADMIN challenges, given that I really don't understand why anyone expects admins to be able to handle personal attacks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your comment. I'll tell you that I'm an admin and I expect myself to be able to handle personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • My point is that very frequently when you make a WP:ADMIN based challenge the admin in question fails to handle it in a remotely appropriate fashion. Often they ignore your complaint until escalation is threatened, or they clearly get extremely upset about it - and I've even seen ex-members of the arbitration committee in that position. That's why there's a whole bunch of stuff at the top of this page waiting to be closed. And that list is only as short as it is because I've spent a lot of time cleaning up the requests, as have tough admins like Beeblebrox.
      • If a substantial proportion of the admin community cannot accept legitimate per policy challenges, I don't understand why you think that those same people can handle being insulted over and over. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I can take somebody calling me an asshole on the chin, but if it goes unchallenged often enough, newcomers will see things unpunished and decide that calling other editors assholes is acceptable, and point to these examples as proof. Don't go there. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Kindly refrain from using the imperative; thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't understand what you mean there. Let's put it another way, if a group of youths vandalise a building, and appear to get away with it when charged, other kids might think they can do it as well. Sooner or later, somebody needs to say "enough" and "set an example" to get the community back on track. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
        • You're telling me "don't go there" as if I'm some child. I also don't think Jack is a youth, though he might wish he were. I guess Jack and I do have something in common. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
          • No, I'm just saying that saying "I can take personal attacks, why can't you?" isn't likely to result in a constructive debate. Which, as we can see, is exactly what's happened here! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Riggr Mortis - I wrote this in August - [55] I think the bottom line is the character formally known as Davenbelle and dozens of other names like the rabbit he uses today - counter to all the rules on wikipedia - appears to have a vindictive side, runs rampant, and harasses certain editors like Raul and others and has a gallery of followers who pick up after him. What's the point of having rules - if this person continues to flaunt them?...Modernist (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• support: block, ban, tar, feather, just don't throw him into any briar patches yonder. Don't sock - it's clear enough. Why shouldn't this apply to Jack too? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This might be hopelessly naive, and please ignore it if it is. I don't really know much of him, other than what I've read here, but I'm impressed by the arguments made above by Moe, et al . Has he ever given his personal word not to create any more socks? How about he be allowed to continue editing if does that, and be instantly and permanently banned if he ever creates another one? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the potential gain of it. He's a technical whiz and has done some good stuff on here. I consider myself a friend of his on here and he might not want to hear this but I try to always be honest. I must admit I have come to see him as something of a trouble magnet. I've seen him involved in a lot of disputes, some of them over trivial things such as infoboxes where there really seemed no point in edit warring and dispute. I quite like he fact he doesn't consider wiki policies as rules, I think there is a lot to be said about that, but I think he has the tendency to focus on a lot of trivial issues and seems attracted to conflict. I wish he'd knuckle down and focus on improving things like Indonesian regency articles and such as he did in the past or coding bots to produce lots of decent, sourced articles; I think he wastes a lot of time and in doing so the time of others, which if put to better use, he'd be an extremely valuable editor for wikipedia. He's a good guy and I'd hate to see him banned, but I do think he needs to consider a few things and try to avoid petty disputes and focus more on why we're here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Why has the sock Alarbus, not been blocked? GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  That account is locked which is effectively a global block, calm down. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I think I've come across JM in some items on my watchlist some time ago, but actually operating as a sockmaster all the while is inexcusable. Telling off Courcelles or any other editor for calling BS on his work is not a good idea. Get him out of here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support What part of "don't sock" do you people not understand? As a disinterested observer, I notice a clear undercurrent of FAC politics among some of those opposing a ban. Brer Whomever seems to fulfill a useful role for this clique. Though personality politics have unfortunately become part and parcel of Wikipedia, I still find them distasteful and damaging. Skinwalker (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That was my impression too, namely that Br'er was basically groomed as an attack dog. I've avoided anything FA-related for a long time though; too much politicking going on there. So I could well be mistaken. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Argh. Argh argh argh argh argh. For his own sake, I genuinely hope JM has grown entirely bored of Wikipedia, because he's just dropped a grand piano on the camel's back. He's been an extraordinarily productive counter for all sorts of bad behaviour around the project over the years (yes, ironic indeed), but I can't really see how he can come back from self-destruction like this. A great pity, and more than a little awkward for those editors who firmly respect his contributions towards the Greater Good but who firmly oppose the double standards that still plague the way we treat our most charismatic editors. Still, some of the projection above is delicious, and I imagine if JM ever does read this he'll get a good chuckle out of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I promised myself to stay out of this... First and foremost Davenbelle is already a community banned user. He was never pardoned. Jack Merridew was Davenbelles 8th account. This ban came over his abusive use of sockpuppets to continue the behavior he was sanctioned by four RfARs including harassment. Primarily through private discussions (community was not consulted) ArbCom overturned the community ban on several conditions with the most important restriction being that Davenbelle was to use a single account and to not continue his harassment campaign towards me (or anyone). Since that ruling until 6 May 2011 Davenbelle created 6 more accounts reaching a count of 14. Since 7 May 2011 he has created a total of 30 more accounts which reached the grand total of 44 accounts. How many users with a "net positive contribution" has 44 accounts? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I do share the sentiment that this is a mess ArbCom should handle. They revoked the community ban and hence this is their problem. Any community ban decided here could just as easily be revoked again by ArbCom. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 7)Neutral I really don't see the point of banning. First off, Boing! And 28bytes make good points. Also, why ban if he is going to continue to sock and continue his shannanigans? Then again, being banned before, his unban condition was one account. If ArbCom had been hinted that she wouldn't have followed through with his condition, the ban would never been lifted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Due to edit warring, abusing socks when restricted to one by ArbCom, making personal attacks with false accusations of gravedancing just for writing an essay about that subject, as well as assuming bad faith and poking bears. This ought to be logged at List of banned editors also, so in a year or so when someone decides he should be allowed to edit again "with just one account" they'll have access to the history. This all goes back years and years and looks like multiple chances have been given. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Largely per HJ Mitchell. Many, many constructive contributions. At the same, time, we cannot allow constructive contributions to be used as an excuse to ignore community rules. The flouting of restrictions is too egregious to be simply ignored. While I know in theory that indefinite bans always mean until we decide otherwise, I object, in principle to indefinite bans of editors. I could support a medium term ban, such as three months, to send the message we are serious, yet allow him to return without having to beg.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support this level of abuse always justifies a ban, no matter what the circumstances. Content contributions aren't free passes for breaching community norms, especially not on this scale. Hut 8.5 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the type of people who instinctively oppose community bans seem, in general, to be statistically less likely to be dicks than those who instinctively support community bans, and I want to maintain the illusion that I'm not a dick. Also, because community bans are stupid, with no real benefit except the warm sanctimonious feeling they create, and instead I'm getting my warm feeling by being sanctimonious about Jack's enemies crawling out of the woodwork to get their kicks in. Also, because I genuinely respect Jack's contributions to the encyclopedia, and even though I've grudgingly come to the conclusion that he and Wikipedia simply aren't made for each other, I would still like him to leave on as good terms as possible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A !vote that consists of personal attacks on those who disagree with you and dismissing anyone who votes to ban as "enemies" of Merridew doesn't seem especially meritorious. I could write another essay that covers how frequently people abuse this position as well. Merridew is up for a ban because he can't work with others without going silly buggers and violating policy, not because he has "enemies". - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You use the term "personal attacks" too freely, Balph, I daresay significantly more often than I say "enemies". You should stop; it makes you look foolish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

While obviously in real life people have friends, most people don't have substantial numbers of enemies, in the real world I don't hate anyone. The idea that gets raised every time we have such a discussion that people have substantial numbers of enemies always seems to be fairly absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"most people don't have substantial numbers of enemies"... You're new to the internet, I take it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not new to the internet. The point still stands. Anyone who goes around just hating on people for no reason would get banned pretty quickly here.

Sure it is true that celebrities on twitter take a certain amount of abuse, but those people make up a tiny minority of their twitter followers.

Maybe a tiny minority of the people who have voted in support actively hate the guy, but the rest of us just want our policies to actually get followed so there is a pleasant editing environment for the rest of us. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But now you're just making my point for me (or you were, before you tweaked your original post, to which I was responding before the edit conflict: [56]). My guess would be higher than yours, as I'd say 10% would be a lower bound of the supports from people I would consider his "enemies"; that's who I'm talking about. If you re-read my post, I'm not saying everyone supporting a ban is an enemy, I'm saying his enemies are salivating at this opportunity and are crawling out of the woodwork. It's distasteful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that the percentage of enemies is even 10% - that's why I changed it - if we were aiming at that sort of percentage we'd be arguing that 2.5 million people on Twitter actively hating on Rihanna - realistically it is probably a tenth of that, if not substantially lower.

This same argument about haters gets bought out each and every time we have one of these discussions - and other than being a sure-fire way of raising drama (and therefore making it harder for the individual concerned to return) I have never seen any evidence against any editor for actually being a so called "hater" in any of these discussions. If truly it is a real problem then that seems like something that causes a substantial amount of the problems with these discussions, and the evidence should be bought up for the community and/or arbcom to consider. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am curious... Do I count as one of his enemies or victims? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose per Floq and Boing - I don't care what name he edits under; he's been incredibly helpful to me and many others with his technical expertise. Banning him, especially for what seems to be a bad day or two, would be a huge net loss to the encyclopedia. We all have bad days and I'd rather we not descend into hypocrisy by banning him for what, in the big picture, amounts to a stupid indiscretion. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• If it was just one bad day, I don't think any of us would be here. Except the truth is that it was weeks and weeks of bad days that led to block after block, to Arbcom sanctioning for a period to years, and to 44 sockpuppets. This is about far more than just a bad day. Silverseren^C 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) One bad day may excuse an insult or two, it doesn't excuse socks created months ago. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think playful socks are a reason to ban. Silver, I agree, he's had trouble in the past, but the current issue has been precipitated by an edit war that looks to me to be the result of a bad day or two. That's the issue at hand. His old socks have already been dealt with by the community and, to me, are water under the bridge. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you talking about the edit warring block, whereupon he block evaded by using a secret sock he made back in July, which was then blocked, and he then block evaded again with a new sock he made just then? Silverseren^C 20:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • How on earth can "playful" socks not be a reason to ban when he was explicitly told he wasn't allowed to create them by the Arbitration committee? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Playful socks are fine for an ordinary user with good standing. I have one or two myself which I created over the course of 7+ years. Davenbelle however is not such a user. He is a community banned user whose community ban was removed (not pardoned) by ArbCom on the condition that he did not use more than one account to edit. Since then he has chosen to create 32 newer accounts. Someone in his situation would normally not get a second account for bot edits let alone a fleet of sockpuppets. Also please note that this user has chosen to deliberately compromise his accounts by publicly posting username passwords when ArbCom told him he would be editing from a single account. This is why a good chunk of his sock accounts are locked globally. All of this is on top of the negative legacy he had prior to the mentioned community ban. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• comment: is there a reason that User:Uncontroversial Obscurity and User:Alarbus have not been blocked? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been told that all socks have been blocked or locked on Meta. --Rschen7754 19:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Alarbus, at least, is global blocked, so it wouldn't show up on the normal block list here. I don't know about Uncontroversial Obscurity. Silverseren^C 19:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • They are; popups may be ancient, but they are still useful. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • All known accounts are either blocked and/or locked. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floq. But xe said it so lovely I'm going to repeat it: because the type of people who instinctively oppose community bans seem, in general, to be statistically less likely to be dicks than those who instinctively support community bans, and I want to maintain the illusion that I'm not a dick. Also, because community bans are stupid, with no real benefit except the warm sanctimonious feeling they create, and instead I'm getting my warm feeling by being sanctimonious about Jack's enemies crawling out of the woodwork to get their kicks in. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence for the statistical point?
  • And frankly it seems pretty dickish to force the rest of us to continually put up with editors who are unable to behave themselves. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban Per other comments above. We all have been guilty of the occasional edit war and we've all sometimes said intemperate things. Anyone want to throw the first stone? Br'er/Jack is a useful contributor who has a few "Malleus moments" (said with respect to Malleus who also has to periodically endure this nonsense because he says something that hurts someone's widdle fweewings) and, yes, Br'er/Jack, unlike Malleus, also has a penchant for socking. Wikipedia isn't a federal court, and while Br'er/Jack has committed a long series of "misdemeanors," but he has not threatened anyone, disrupted the project to a serious extent (just a few disagreements, we all have them), or done something like mass copy and paste that violates the sprit of wikipedia. He also is deliberately a court jester or master satirist of a sort who points out the absurdities and inconsistencies of WP, which is a role that is needed. I say he had a bad weekend. In the real world, we don't give life sentences to people who commit multiple misdemeanors, we just up the penalties, but usually the third or fourth offense is the max, and you never get the death penalty. (Indef community ban being the equivalent) I say he gets a good slap for socking while blocked, and we let him back with the same restrictions as before. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But we haven't all created sock accounts months ago that we use to throw that stone. Let alone sock accounts months ago after being explicitly blocked by Arbcom from creating secondary accounts.
  • If from time to time I'm uncivil it happens from my main account, and usually the incivility gets edited away or retracted and apologised for.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Sockpuppetry is not okay. — goethean ॐ 21:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the ineffable wisdom of Floquenbeam. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Community ban, until the Community sees fit to lift it. The evidence shows abusive behavior and breach of trust re socking. The few oppose comments above are so weak, that apparently they need to rely upon overstatement, generalized attacks, and odd analogies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And emotional appeals. --Rschen7754 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I can't say that I buy that this whole business is because of JM's enemies. When I see arguments like that one, I'm reminded of other longstanding yet highly problematic editors who have been blocked or banned. Those arguments don't really address the problems that have brought this user here many times in the past. In looking back through the history of this user, I see a number of good edits interspersed by periods where he seems to become quite troublesome. Is it true that he once handed out the passwords for a bunch of his sockpuppet accounts? To me, that's enough reason to never allow someone to resume editing. It's a shame because he does some good work, but as was noted way above in a link to the Betacommand case, good edits don't nullify bad behavior. People disagree frequently, but once it becomes disruptive, that ought to be the end of it. The Garbage Skow (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Several editors have said Oppose because JM is a net benefit to Wikipedia or his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds. There are some rules where breaking a rule deserves "punishment" regardless of how great and wonderful a person is. There should be no 3rd chances for any sockpuppetry, especially not on such a blatant, deliberate scale. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I generally avoid supporting such measures, and being someone who's had run ins with Alarbus/Brer before, I thought I shouldn't register an !vote as it might not appear objective. But some of the comments of opponents of the ban creeped me out. "Aww, I was only kidding" and "Can't you take a joke", is the quintessential excuse of every bully, and only reinforces the negative impression and determination to not see this behavior rewarded. To remind: civility isn't demanded because people's feelings might be offended, it is demanded because it mars the productivity of Wikipedia. Insults and bad language drag down and derail discussions and have a chilling effect on participation by other editors. I have known editors who refrained from participating in discussions past simply because they did not wish their comments to be a target of Brer's insults. This "chilling effect", often overlooked, needs to be taken into account in weighing the productive worth of this editor. But this is not the basis of my support for this measure. I do not and would not support a ban on Brer, if it was being proposed here. I would prefer other measures to deal with his incivility and socks problem. But I don't see a ban being proposed here. I see merely a proposal to determine whether Brer violated the terms of an unban deal he himself agreed to. And the evidence points that he did. The status quo ante should be resumed. As to losing potentially productive edits he might make in the future, alas, that is regrettable. But to quote De Gaulle, "the world's graveyards are full of indispensible people". Walrasiad (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support the frequent trolling by Jack/Brer/whatever we should call him has gone on for far too long. There comes a point when a person's net benefit to the encyclopedia is outweighed by the negatives. It happened with Ottava Rima, and it's happened here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly; that's what comes to mind. Also, all of the members of the TFA clique at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement have commented here by now, with the exception of PumpkinSky. Seems that all his friends are coming out to support him and excusing the bad behavior (although they largely don't claim to, but it is clear that if he returns, he will be pulling these sort of stunts on a regular basis). --Rschen7754 00:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Most people who have clashed with him over the years have shown up as well--are you of the opinion that it's Ok for people who have disagreed with him to comment here, but not for people who worked amicably with him? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
      • This goes back to consensus and what a consensus discussion really is. I think that those particular comments should be taken in light of the bias that they have. That is why a straight vote count is never the sole determining factor in closing discussions like these. I also think that other voters should be aware of the QAI influence, as should anyone who participates at TFAR, for that matter. --Rschen7754 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
        • (Ironically, Jack doesn't even think Ottava should ever return - see User:Uncontroversial Obscurity.) --Rschen7754 00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, I agree that if !votes were discounted due to hypocrisy one (or maybe both) side(s) of this argument would be in a world of hurt. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support – All the run-throughs I have had with this user have been unpleasant, particularly when he told me that my developing of television articles to featured status is unimportant. Jack is uncivil, and does not respect community guidelines—this ban should have been set in place long ago. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—Br'er Rabbit taught me how to do references right, with the {{r}}, {{sfn}} and <refn> templates. We are, first, about content quality. On that front my interaction with the editor has been too positive for me to support something as harsh-sounding as a community ban. Churn and change (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Bishonen deleted Br'er Rabbit's sock userpages, Kww restored them

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

Please see Kww's short note above: "I restored all of the user pages that had been deleted: the categories have been repopulated."[57] Indeed he did, but what for? I deleted all Jack's userpages earlier today, per his own request and the long list of socks he posted on his page. I don't understand why Kww has reverted me. My understanding of categories is that they were invented to organize pages. Not that pages exist for the sake of populating categories. Kww told me what he had done on my page, which I appreciate. But I would have appreciated even more being consulted before my admin actions were undone (on such a large scale, too). Bishonen | talk 23:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

I ask Kww to undo his reverts and re-delete the pages. If anybody finds it difficult to localize the alternate accounts without the categories, let me tell you the categories were hilariously inconvenient and convoluted anyway, because of the trouble they had deciding which was or wasn't the "main" account, the sockpuppeteer. It's a lot simpler to find all known socks (perhaps including some that were not known before? I'm not sure) from Jacks own list here, or from this list in my userspace, which has even got links, than it ever was from those categories. (Please feel free to post one or both of those links where you think they would do most good. My user subpage, at any rate, isn't going to go away or change.) And the contributions of an account, for those who wish to research Jack's actions, can be found just as easily at a deleted as an undeleted page. The familiar "User contributions" link is still right there, in its usual place. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

I hope people will post their opinions on this issue here; in particular, I hope that people who want to ask some specific question of me personally will do it as soon as possible. I really need to go to bed. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

I initially commented at your talk page, but since it's now here:

Just because admins can see deleted history, doesn't mean all editors can. While I do agree that Kww should have dropped you a note first, I think I'll agree with Kww that transparency during a discussion of community banning sounds like a good idea. If anything this should help, not hinder the editor. Otherwise you'll likely have people wondering what the editor is hiding. - jc37 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You can still see the contributions of a user with a deleted userpage, which is what Bishonen was saying.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I understood that, but deleted pages don't appear in categories. And one cannot view the edit history of a deleted page. - jc37 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Deleting userpages is a courtesy afforded to users, and 99.9% of the time that courtesy should be extended to them because it is presumed they are acting in good faith. That presumption of good faith doesn't apply to a user that asks for deletion of all of his user pages and subpages during a discussion of whether his use of the alternate accounts associated with those pages was disruptive: it can only be assumed that the motivation is to make evidence against him more difficult to investigate.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  @Kww.Very far-fetched assumption of Jack's bad faith motives, if you don't mind my saying so. Jack has left the project. He's burnt-out and bitter. He doesn't care about the "evidence" aginst him. Indeed, why would he, since people obviously already feel they have enough and to spare? There's a quite different reason he wants them deleted, and he has shared it with me in e-mail, but I'm not going to publish it here. OK, that's it from me for tonight. Bishonen | talk 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

  If there's a privacy concern, then deleting a revision would presumably work, and wholesale deletion of multiple pages would seem unnecessary? That aside, wouldn't it make more sense to not bring scrutiny on this by the deletion? Security through obscurity and Streisand effect both come to mind... - jc37 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  It's far from obvious that Jack requested the deletions to conceal evidence, but given his behavior, the community cannot reasonably be expected to assume otherwise. He's lost that entitlement. —David Levy 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with jc37 that kww should have contacted Bishonen before restoring the user page. That said, I don't think that Bishonen should have honored Br'er Rabbit's request. Putting aside the issue of hiding evidence, procedurally, when an account is blocked, the user cannot edit any page but their talk page. Honoring a request to delete their user page is essentially permitting them to edit it, and in the extreme. Procedurally, it's almost like unblocking them temporarily just so they can tag their own user page for a speedy delete. One final note. The U1 criterion states: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page." I'm not sure what those "rare cases" are, but perhaps this is one (even assuming Br'er Rabbit were not blocked in the first instance).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there's been enough deletions, revisions, and oversighting of too many things over the years; there are some admin's early editor histories that make swiss cheese look whole by comparison. Pick a master, tag the rest as socks, and leave it all for public viewing. Enough with the games and chicanery. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Tarc. This is ultimately a distraction; lets let the loss lie where it falls. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If this was any other sockmaster, would we be going around deleting all the pages? --Rschen7754 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we would, if at some point the master really had left for good, or really had reformed. Neither is the case here, so even done in good faith, Bishonen's deletions ultimately served only to obfuscate Jack's history of socking, which is highly relevant to a ban discussion that centres around his history of socking. Resolute 00:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive the (sub-section heading) nitpicking, Bish, but those are Jack's socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of editors who have come out to support the ban, leaving the user pages as "evidence" seems unnecessary. Jack has [58] scuttled his fleet, it serves no purpose to try and keep it afloat. No, it's just the usual Wikipedia peevishness once an editor is determined to be "bad." Nobody Ent 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack has "scuttled" many accounts, and it's surprising he didn't post the password here like he has been known to do. He's also requested (and been granted) the deletion of his sock pages several times before, only to have them reinstated as many times by e-mailing his admin buddies after his triumphant returns. His requesting deletion of them yet again perpetuates this strange cycle. They are not his pages: they do not belong to him. Doc talk 03:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the pages. We don't normally do that for sockpuppet accounts. Just slap the usual sockpuppet template onto the pages and call it a day. Silverseren^C 04:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That gets the same treatment: tags go on, e-mails are sent to supporters later on down the road and the tags come off. It's all part of the same old game. I see Bishonen's above statements of: "He doesn't care about the "evidence" aginst him." and "There's a quite different reason he wants them deleted, and he has shared it with me in e-mail, but I'm not going to publish it here." as disturbing. What "secret" reason could he possibly have to delete these pages that cannot be shared here? Why should he dictate what we can and cannot do with our pages? Doc talk 05:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Doc's comment is an example of the paranoia that reigns where Jack Merridew and too many other indeffed users are concerned. It's all a "game", is it? No actual people involved? Jack's dehumanized, he doesn't deserve ordinary human consideration or courtesy (notice Kww italicizing courtesy above, as if to emphasize that there's no occasion for it in this case?), and everything Jack does or wants has to be for a sinister, game-playing reason. I'm not going to share information I got by e-mail without the explicit permission of the sender of the mail. That's "disturbing"? And here I thought it was best practice, or even mandated. I may say the reason Jack gave me for wanting the pages deleted was remarkably un-sinister, but it was human and personal, and no, his detractors aren't going to get to paw over it on AN. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

I... oh, boy. "Dehumanizing" is just an odd way of characterizing any of my comments. Like he's some sort of "animal" is how I'm portraying him? Seriously... Doc talk 09:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of dehumanizing? I was thinking your comments portray Jack as the devil incarnate or a character in a computer game. Are you going to respond in any meaningful way to any of the things I said? Well, never mind about that. Are you going to think about them? Please. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

Jack (not his real name) is, I'm quite sure, a perfectly nice and upstanding citizen, wherever it is he lives. I'm confident that he doesn't worship the devil or kill baby seals in his spare time. And that he's not a character in a computer game. He's a real person, with real feelings. What does any of that have to do with his behavior here? Doc talk 10:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Gee, it's very hard to try to talk with you. Are you being deliberately slow? It has to do with your behaviour here — right here on the page. Our own actions are the only actions we can change. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

What on earth are you talking about? My behavior? In what way has my behavior been inappropriate in this discussion? Have I been uncivil? Doc talk 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have behaved badly.[59][60]. This is my last reply to you. I'm tired now. Feel free to re-read my specific criticism above. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

That first diff is exactly what has happened every time - it's not behaving badly to point that out. Remembering the past is not a bad thing, necessarily. The second diff hasn't been addressed: but who really cares? This time the pages need to be deleted for personal reasons. Gotcha. Doc talk 12:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It should have a lot to do with our behavior. Nobody Ent 10:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of invoking you-know-what, Hitler didn't worship the devil or kill baby seals (well, at least not as reported significantly by multiple, independent, reliable sources) and his missus probably thought he was a real person with real feelings. Just sometimes one person's feelings are, to put it as mildly as possible, rather incompatible with others'. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there monuments in North Africa, Normandy, London, Berlin, or Volgograd (Stalingrad) saying Adolf was a dick? Nobody Ent 15:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Bishonen, it is all a game. Especially for some of Jacks supporters, who above attempted to defend his block evading socks as his just being "playful". Now, I certainly would not ask you to reveal Jack's reason for requesting deletion without his permission, but frankly, if he himself is not willing to grant that permission, then no, the secret, non-sinister rationale for his request is invalid as far as Wikipedia should be concerned. I also have to say I find your response to Doc9871's comments curious. You certainly chose to take an extreme view on them that, frankly, is well beyond a reasonable interpretation. It becomes obvious that you are not objective on this front, and most certainly should not be using the tools in this situation. Resolute 13:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I dunno how I'm supposed to be considered one of "Jacks supporters" (I'm opposing a community ban, not supporting an individual or their actions), but I was who used the term "playful" above. I considered them to be such, as similar to the bishzilla socks and such. - jc37 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would "defenders" be more accurate then? Resolute 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My italicization of "courtesy" was simply to emphasise that we aren't required to honour U1 requests. They can be denied just like any other speedy. As for these: even if Jack was a perfect citizen in every other respect, I would have refused that set. Any request to delete a user page that comes after multiple requests to delete and restore is game playing.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's fine to blank these pages except for the sockpuppetry tags; those should not be removed. The alternate account tags/statements should probably be kept as well, when they exist. Everything else can be deleted per the user's request. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Bish, deletion in this case wasn't appropriate. I oppose the ban above, and I'm not keen on all this tagging nonsense (as I'm never keen on tagging blocked users) - but given that Jack is one of your friends and currently subject to the above, I believe deletion of userpages by yourself was unwise. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Userpages can be deleted - and it's SOP to add the "sock" tag to them, but it's not necessarily a requirement - I wouldn't personally edit-war over it. Usertalk cannot be deleted, of course. dangerouspanda 12:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• If I understand all of this right, then the pages should be left alone until the ban discussion is concluded, and then, if Jack Merridew is banned, the pages should be deleted as a courtesy. We don't need to place scarlet letters on those who fail to adhere to our community standards, and more we should avoid even the perception of doing such a thing. Tagging user pages is meant to be informative, not punitive.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I feel that there is no (medical) emergency requiring the mass deletion of userpages right away and conversly I also feel the individual userpages do not offer much of an evidence to this discussion. His userpages are just random images with random texts that automatically change every so often. It is a complex series of parser functions. If anything it is very weird but not a policy violation. I agree that this thread on the individual userpages acts as a distraction from the actual matter. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Awkward moment: I went through and tagged all of the socks listed in the first section with {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Jack Merridew}} and {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Davenbelle}} without seeing this discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXITNobody Ent 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, since there was two categories of sockpuppets, I redirected all the sockpuppet taggings of Jack Merridew to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle so they are in one place instead of a few. Br'er Rabbit's userpage had a script on it, so I only added the category and not the tag. Regards, — Moe ε 07:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was a specific reason for keeping the Jack category, so I just put all the post-Jack socks in that category. This works just as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Typical convention is first username which in this case is Davenbelle. I can bulk edit all userpages to circumvent any pre-existing script to include the tag on all of the userpages involved. I do not however want to do this if the pages are going to be deleted anyways. Per WP:DENY we could just link to the individual accounts rather than trying to mass tag them. I think this would be more productive rather than fighting over weather or not to keep the individual userpages. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

All userpages have been tagged to include the tag or the category, so they are all categorized now. I think whether the ban sticks or it becomes a non-issue, then they can be untagged, (soft)redirected or deleted outright. Right now, they shouldn't be deleted considering how recent the issue is, and he certainly doesn't retain the right to request their deletion. Regards, — Moe ε 11:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, he had a new sockpuppet today so I suspect this topic will remain active for a while. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Bishonen should have consulted with the community before deleting. The pages should be restored to create a public record of the behaviour which may be important in the future. I can't think of a good reason why they should be deleted, and looking through m:Privacy policy and Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing I don't see any process by which the user can email Bishonen and have them deleted. I suggest the pages remain restored and the community use the procedure laid out at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing to determine if they should be deleted:

While user pages and subpages may be deleted, the deletion of user talk pages is invariably controversial, and is the rare exception, not the rule. This is because user talk pages, unlike other user pages, have largely been written by other editors. User talk pages should not be speedy deleted by admins. Whenever there is a request to delete a user talk page, a bureaucrat should be consulted. Community consensus is that bureaucrats should delete user talk pages only where there is a compelling reason to do so—related to serious privacy concerns and the potential for real-world harm. Otherwise, user talk pages should be deleted only at MfD. Any deletion, including deletion by bureaucrats, can be challenged and overturned at deletion review. User talk pages should never be moved to become user subpages to facilitate deletion.

• That's the process, I'm unclear as to how Bishonen followed that process. Hiding T 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What? You certainly are unclear. Of course I didn't delete any user talk pages. I deleted only userpages. And Jack didn't "e-mail me to have them deleted", he put a request for it publicly on User talk:Br'er Rabbit. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

Could we remove the userpage and sub userpage content only leaving the sockpuppet tags/categories? Some of the sockpuppet subpages have quite offensive content it seems: User:Jack Merridew/Editnotice. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

White Cat, do you really think it's proper for you to involve yourself so eagerly in this matter? Hasn't enough time passed for you to let it go and leave it to people who don't have such an entrenched ancient grudge as you do? Bishonen | talk 14:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

Why wouldn't I be welcome to comment as I see fit just like anyone else? What possible reason would I have a grudge against him? Also wouldn't it be more logical for me to wish the opposite of what Davenbelle wants? He asked his userspace to be deleted. What I propose partially complies with his wishes as well. I have made a point of not voting on the matter. I merely made an effort so that community reaches an informed decision and even then I have waited for over a day before commenting. My involvement if anything is minimal.

He was sanctioned for wiki-hounding me as you may remember. He has a complex parser functioned userpage that attributes random quotes calculated based on the time and date of the day which are than randmly signed by a list of random names which inclide "Note to Cool Cat". He mentions my username in his userspace on at least one more occasion. I do not actually know or care what the rest of his userspace contains as all this was relayed to me by people through email months (or possibly years) ago and I chose not to react.

Weather he gets blocked or not will not improve my wiki experience. Blocks are a preventative measure, not tools of punishment. If people are able to edit without disrupting the wiki they have no reason to be blocked or banned. Since the user is community banned already I do not quite see a problem of me making a suggestion.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion? You have posted eleven times to this thread. Yes, certainly I remember the Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Coolcat arbitration case. 2005, wasn't it? I'm well aware of how stressful and mortifying the whole affair was for you, not least Davenbelle's sock Moby Dick a little later. (I supported you wholeheartedly and tried to help you, if you remember.) I may say I was a little shocked a few years ago, when Giano's new friend Jack Merridew approached me and turned out to be the notorious Davenbelle. Shocked and rather standoffish. But I think the user has lived down the ancient history since then. Isn't it time you let go, Coolcat? (A name I use out of affection and nostalgia; I hope you don't object. It's nice to see you again, though I'm sorry for the context.) Bishonen | talk 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

• Policy comment/question. It looks like there was a long discussion about what tags and content is allowed on banned users' pages: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 6. There's no summary though, and I can't be bothered to read it all. Someone who participated could perhaps summarize it here? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• OMG Moe and Ed, Gravedancinggggg!! I'd like to note to Merridew, who is no doubt following this thread, that I didn't touch his userpages to place any templates or anything else. I guess I'm not quite Fred Astaire yet. Anyway, can anyone give an objective reason to not tag sockpuppeteer and sock accounts in this case that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks on the people who did it? Or mentions of "scarlet letters"? To this day, I have no idea why any of these templates exist if placing them is considered abusive. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm, not really. I'd just prefer to have one category of sockpuppets, not three. To answer your question, they are used to identify accounts who are the subject of current investigations for sockpuppetry. Once they have served their purpose, the editor has left the project so long that the old accounts are meaningless to compare using checkuser or they are unblocked, then they can be removed/deleted. Regards, — Moe ε 14:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I gave more of an objective reason to keep them tagged rather than not, but regardless, it provides my rationale for doing so. Regards, — Moe ε 14:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Moe, I know. My question wasn't directed at you, but at the hordes of people who scream "gravedancing" and "scarlet letter" whenever their friend is templated by some big meanie. But those same people can never seem to explain why the templates exist in the first place. Thanks for your well-considered explanation. I will drop the stick. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Recent sockpuppets

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.

---

• Br'er Fox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A sockpuppet of Davenbelle was blocked today after confirmed by the checkuser User:DeltaQuad. User had a number of revert wars on the pages Battle of Chosin Reservoir and User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph/accounts. His presence on my userspace is particularly concerning. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

44 known socks & counting. I don't envy the task of CUs. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WoW lost to read here - took a long time - I have a question ... Its clear that regardless of any ban that this user will be back evading as demonstrated in the past. What preventive measures can be taken to prevent more socks? Is there some sort of detection system in place or will it just be a matter of a user looking for new socks?Moxy (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Several of the Checkusers monitor known sockmasters. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, as it appears that they are primarily motivated by recognition (they want us to know that it is them), it won't be hard to find them and block them. If they show up with an unknown sock, start editing previously unedited topics with unknown patterns, never draw attention to themselves, and do so from a different IP address and user agent then they've ever done before, well, we'd never catch them. But I'm not sure that improving Wikipedia for its own sake is a motivation anymore. Which makes checkuser's job easy. --Jayron32 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This "character" will continue to come back as long as his audience of supporters continues to pat him on the back and clap for an encore. The problem will inevitably continue until they stop.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Were you born this patronizing, or is it part of being a professional jokester? Drmies (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And who comes out of the Br'er Rabbit's hole? Ah, one of the aforementioned supporters. Cheers.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, enough is enough. At this point, wouldn't it be reasonable to have a CU run a check for sleepers and then to run periodic checks for new ones? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The $64,000 Question is: will his supporters honor the community's second ban of this individual, including the admin-types? Highly unlikely considering they feel the one-account restriction is as unessessary as he does. Socks will be sheltered like they were before. Look at the past year and draw your own conclusions. Doc talk 03:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are editors who enable a banned editor to continue editing, then they need to be sanctioned themselves. Regards, — Moe ε 03:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If a list is compiled of these "enabling editors", prepare to see your own user named included; and possibly mine. Just saying, - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack being provoked by this discussion is not enabling him; Jack is responsible for what he does, not anybody else. Enabling the evasion of a ban specifically consists of an editor knowing Jack is using a account on Wikipedia while being banned and not saying anything about it. Regards, — Moe ε 03:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's going to compile a list? Definitely not me. It wouldn't be a terribly long one, BTW. I hardly expect any of them to "snitch" on him, since a broken and flawed system made him a virtual martyr. Doc talk 04:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from intimate experience with a similar situation, knowingly refusing to disclose the identity of a banned user returning under a new identity will bite you in the ass. If anyone chooses to do so, learn from the experience of others who have gone down that road and bear the scars to prove it. --Jayron32 04:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is a voluntary activity; with very few exceptions an editor is never required to take action. The ass-biting Jayron32 refers to was for an action (supporting Rfa), not for inaction. Nobody Ent 14:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay... "Check, please!" Archive this with the rest of the mess, somebody... Doc talk 14:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In regards to a "list", which is not necessarily a bad idea, simply find all the "oppose" votes above and you'll have your answer. Coincidentally (or not), most (if not all) of these are of the same congregation that continuously meet to praise the Rabbit (and all of its incarnations). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke

In the page Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and Sandra Fluke there has been an on going and long term problem between editors. Currently in Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy there is a fight about providing a wikilink to War on Women This is to the point that it is absurd. I would suggest that now is the time to start providing page bans to both articles so that more constructive editing can occur. I would suggest that we start out with myself and user:Anonymous209.6. At some point we should allow those who are actually willing to work together to edit the article do so. In neither page has this been really possible. I think it is clear that myself and Anonymous209 help to create a bad environment for continued progress on both pages. Casprings (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You are half right (sorry, couldn't resist)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're basically asking that you and Anonymous be topic banned? Note, by the way, that I've shortened the length of the section title; it had been "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke and Sandra Fluke controversy long term problems between editors." Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a baffling request. We don't normally enforce self-ban requests, as the remedy is "stop being a knucklehead." Or are you kamikaze'ing yourself in order to take out the other editor? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if kamikaz'ing is the right word. I just took a look at the history, past attempts to resolve the issue and I think that both articles would be better served if both me and Anonymous209.6 were eliminated from editing both articles. I am not sure that either of us can "stop being a knucklehead". If you look at the months of conflict, I think that it pretty clear. It would be a far better editing environment if both of us were gone. Just my thoughts. Casprings (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You could always trout yourself [61], I suppose. Qworty (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@Casprings: Not sure I follow what you are asking for. If you are saying you have the self-awareness that you are 50% of the problem, why wouldn't you just walk away from the article? Or are you saying you can't trust yourself to stay away and you need to be "helped" to do so with a topic ban? DeCausa (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I would presume that the reason that User:Casprings does not want to unilaterally walk away from the article is that User:Anonymous209.6 has a clear history of extreme right-wing editing, and will undoubtedly unbalance the article in a partisan way in the absence of strong opposition. — goethean ॐ 14:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be correct Casprings (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if I actually have to respond to this bizarre request; have the sense from the above admin comments that it would not be productive to discuss the request itself. I would note, however, two things. First, the question on the page of whether to use a quote or a wikilink is a simple MOS issue, and it has been pointed out by several editors (myself included) that yes, a choice has to be made. Second, the hallmark of a tendentious editor is the abuse of process, as evidenced by this filing and about a hundred others to avoid addressing issues on Talk. If you want a better example, see [[62]]. Please let me know if I have to continue posting here. I hope this is all the time I have to spend on this board on this issue (if there actually IS an issue - can't see it). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is the virtually inevitable result of some ill-considered closes at AfD. Sandra Fluke should have her own biography page, which includes coverage of the incident. Rush Limbaugh should have his own biography page, which includes coverage of the incident. There should be no page on the controversy (POV warrior magnet) nor on "War on Women" (unencyclopedic Election 2012 foolishness). But, hey, somebody didn't think this through, have fun with the resulting mess. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD backlog

Pretty healthy AfD backlog, if anyone is interested. I'll be chipping away at them on and off throughout the day. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's cut now from 56 to 29, but more help is always appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Open proxy?

Howdy all--I just blocked 85.19.187.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for the usual stuff, and saw in the record that they have a five-year block under their belt as an open proxy. Can someone check to see if my one-week block needs to be extended by another five or ten years? Drmies (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for OPP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Never been there. Is it exciting? Drmies (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well you've certainly been missing out! It's all "virtual private network"-this and "exit nodes"-that.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've raised it there for you. We don't block open proxies for very long lengths of time any more. Secretlondon (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hrm? There are plenty of indeffed blocked ranges in the latest database report. Most are for proxies. Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks. Even among the more recently imposed ones, 3-5 year blocks are common; one-year blocks seem to be the minimum sentence for proxies. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Easing back into editing

I took a break after stress levels skyrocketed. I'm going to be easing back into things. My question is, with the issues surrounding StillStanding 24-7 and I, does the community feel I am no longer uninvolved in election articles to continue enforcing Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log? It's no concern to me if ya'all think I should find another thing to keep busy on, I just want to know some other sysop is patrolling it if ya'll would rather me not.--v/r - TP 02:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the complaints from StillStanding 24-7 were just the rantings of someone who had no business editing there at all; I'd support your continuing to take administrative action (if I can ever beat some sense into Prem Rawat, I may just join you too). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If I am very generous, I will say I have not been the target of attacks from StillStanding. I was merely the target of some absolutely lunatic people who took his part at a very questionable time. With that bias declared, I don't think there's any problem with you dealing with the very problematic area in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

TParis, if you're coming back to edit, I would think the last thing you would want to look forward to editing to would be any Amercian politics-related article, given the nearly toxic environment there is outside WP alone.

Then again, I tend to concentrate on stuff that is not politics-related, as that is who I am. --MuZemike 03:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're fine helping out in that area; you weren't doing anything wrong before. As always, feel free to come here or another relevant place ot ask for help if confronted with similarly intransigent users. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RfPP backlog

There's a bit of a backlog on requests for page protection. It'd be great if some administrators could handle it.

I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit busy with Ada Lovelace Day (despite my Y chromosomes). —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandal fighting bot?

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a vandal fighting bot that reverses large blanking of articles? I've just recently had to revert two vandals who have removed large sections of articles, that normally the bot would have caught. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's User:ClueBot NG. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be doing its job. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It reverts blatant vandalism. I guess it didn't detect the blanking as vandalism. ZappaOMati 23:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think it didn't revert because it is not able to distinguish good-faith removal of unsuitable content from a vandal just chopping stuff out of an article. The edit filter tags any section blanking by non-autoconfirmed users, think that is probably the best we can do on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How can this and this be interpreted as good faith? If the bot can't tell it's vandalism, it needs to be tweaked. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You would need to take that up with the bot's operator. I would suggest posting at the bot talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Parsing content, including deleted content, is not an easy job to do automatically - Artificial Intelligence is still only at a very rudimentary level. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(Sometimes human intelligence is only rudimentary :-) ) Never rely on a bot to do 100% of what we as editors should be doing first dangerouspanda 09:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How could a bot possible distinguish between section blanking by a vandal, and a user removing a big vandalism section that was recently added. If ClueBot reverted all instances of section blanking, it might be accidentally reinstating vandalism into an article. In order for a bot to distinguish, it needs to understand context, which even the most powerful artificial intelligence systems in the world don't adequately do. -Scottywong| yak _ 18:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Some days ago, I was editing logged out and blanked a section that was problematic; I think it was a copyvio, but it might have been some other big problem. I definitely don't vandalise while logged out, but a bot that reverts large blanking of articles might well have decided to fight me and thus restored a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hound/Civil/AGF IBAN request

• Request: I would like to request an IBAN between myself and Cantaloupe2 (see context here) A couple editors have told me that I should post the request here. Corporate 12:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Disclosure You've got a discussion going concurrently at

• Talk:Nouniquenames
• Talk:DGG
• AN Talk

I'm requesting your disclosure in any other locations you're concurrently discussing this matter. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On AN Talk, you claim that you want to be able to edit without being "pounced on". I interpret that as expecting to have full reign in wanting to add whatever you want to advance your paid edits on behalf of clients to show their pages in positive light they wish without having me change it to look any other way. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved, so take this with a grain of salt. I've spelled out my reasoning at COIN, but I'd suggest that something may need to be done if Cantaloupe can't learn to interact nicely. --Nouniquenames 05:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Silas S. Brown and his thousands of redirects to Hangul

I have given User:Silas S. Brown a short block for ignoring requests to stop his redirect creation spree and discuss this first. He was creating thousands of redirects to Hangul at a very high speed (over 20 per minute)? It looks as if he was tryiong to create a redirect from every syllable block (the article: "The number of possible blocks is 11,172, though there are far fewer possible syllables in Korean, and not all possible syllables actually occur.") to the actual language. Whether this is wanted and these are good, obvious search terms is dubious (or at least debatable).

Outside review of the block and of the redirect creation is welcome. Fram (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He's responded now, with an indication that the script has been stopped, so I guess the block has already served its purpose and could be lifted, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page looks like it was a good faith bot experiment. He should be unblocked and encouraged to learn more about bot writing in the appropriate channels, so he can contribute more in this area. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and the correct unblock now that the script is stopped and the operator responding. Any ideas on what to do with the redirects (or where best to discuss this?). Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Since they're all new, they won't be linked anywhere, so I would check that he's okay with them all being undone and, if so, WP:CSD#G7 the lot. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but would you include the links to e.g. here and here as well? They even include a number of links I can't access because I can't find the source, only the target. No idea if there have been other similar runs. Fram (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'd better write up exactly what I've done: User:Silas S. Brown/Unicode redirects Silas S. Brown (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20#14,000 Unicode characters to discuss these. Fram (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is backlogged.

Please consider spending your time there, admins.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

?? That's a pretty typical number. No one usually gets excited until it hits 100, which it hasn't in some time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Müdigkeit (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So why did you then decide to change it to 100, then? --MuZemike 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is the usual number when someone should really go and look at it right now, then that should be the backlog point, right? After all, a backlog should show that something should be done right now. If 50 are normal, and nothing to worry about, then a backlog notice with 50 makes no sense.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or someone messed up the CSS interface?

It displays all mangled up on en.wp, especially at the top (title overlapping the links above and the tabs below), but it's fine on other language Wikipedias. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's back to normal now. It lasted about 5 minutes. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New look?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I saw. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes CSS just fails to load, but usually a refresh fixes it. I get screwed up CSS at least once a day, from two different geolocations/computers each day, but then again, I load a lot of pages each day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hound/Civil/AGF IBAN request

• Request: I would like to request an IBAN between myself and Cantaloupe2 (see context here) A couple editors have told me that I should post the request here. Corporate 12:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Disclosure You've got a discussion going concurrently at

• Talk:Nouniquenames
• Talk:DGG
• AN Talk

I'm requesting your disclosure in any other locations you're concurrently discussing this matter. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On AN Talk, you claim that you want to be able to edit without being "pounced on". I interpret that as expecting to have full reign in wanting to add whatever you want to advance your paid edits on behalf of clients to show their pages in positive light they wish without having me change it to look any other way. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved, so take this with a grain of salt. I've spelled out my reasoning at COIN, but I'd suggest that something may need to be done if Cantaloupe can't learn to interact nicely. --Nouniquenames 05:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Silas S. Brown and his thousands of redirects to Hangul

I have given User:Silas S. Brown a short block for ignoring requests to stop his redirect creation spree and discuss this first. He was creating thousands of redirects to Hangul at a very high speed (over 20 per minute)? It looks as if he was tryiong to create a redirect from every syllable block (the article: "The number of possible blocks is 11,172, though there are far fewer possible syllables in Korean, and not all possible syllables actually occur.") to the actual language. Whether this is wanted and these are good, obvious search terms is dubious (or at least debatable).

Outside review of the block and of the redirect creation is welcome. Fram (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He's responded now, with an indication that the script has been stopped, so I guess the block has already served its purpose and could be lifted, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page looks like it was a good faith bot experiment. He should be unblocked and encouraged to learn more about bot writing in the appropriate channels, so he can contribute more in this area. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and the correct unblock now that the script is stopped and the operator responding. Any ideas on what to do with the redirects (or where best to discuss this?). Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Since they're all new, they won't be linked anywhere, so I would check that he's okay with them all being undone and, if so, WP:CSD#G7 the lot. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but would you include the links to e.g. here and here as well? They even include a number of links I can't access because I can't find the source, only the target. No idea if there have been other similar runs. Fram (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'd better write up exactly what I've done: User:Silas S. Brown/Unicode redirects Silas S. Brown (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20#14,000 Unicode characters to discuss these. Fram (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Page Name

hello Sir, I want to make a Community page named "Youngistan Reunites" which is Trust located at Jaipur. We are doing work on Young peoples on their problems. We have organized several events under this banner. so kindly allow me to make my page with this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngistanreunites (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Jayron32 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:COI, and WP:UNAME Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to Facebook community pages. Such pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia—such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. However, at Wikipedia we have no control over Facebook's community pages. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is backlogged.

Please consider spending your time there, admins.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

?? That's a pretty typical number. No one usually gets excited until it hits 100, which it hasn't in some time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Müdigkeit (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So why did you then decide to change it to 100, then? --MuZemike 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is the usual number when someone should really go and look at it right now, then that should be the backlog point, right? After all, a backlog should show that something should be done right now. If 50 are normal, and nothing to worry about, then a backlog notice with 50 makes no sense.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or someone messed up the CSS interface?

It displays all mangled up on en.wp, especially at the top (title overlapping the links above and the tabs below), but it's fine on other language Wikipedias. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's back to normal now. It lasted about 5 minutes. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New look?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I saw. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes CSS just fails to load, but usually a refresh fixes it. I get screwed up CSS at least once a day, from two different geolocations/computers each day, but then again, I load a lot of pages each day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)