Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257

Syrian civil war 2011 - cities and towns - history‎

Hi. I don't know what to do about this article. See this thread on my talk about it. I'm not sure what the best remedy is here, but I know that I don't seem to have much traction with the user in question. I may have been in error. Feel free to point out if so. I went to the talk page for WikiProject Syria to post a query there about it, but there doesn't seem to be much traffic on that page. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(I notified the user for you, do that first next time.) The "considerable discussion" Andre alludes to is as far as I can see a unilateral decision, and a poor, uninformed one at best. I tried to read through all of it, and I don't know exactly what he's trying to do (User:Tradedia, could you explain what's going on? I sure as hell can't). I don't think you were wrong, Killiondude. Ansh666 02:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The big question to me is what YOU are trying to do, Killiondude ?

I do not see any problem with trying to help rearrange a site that fails to function properly due to the inability of Mediawiki to properly display the page.

Everything I (and others) are doing is in cooperation with Tradedia, the creator of the original page.

So where is the problem ? I get the impression of facing a bunch of control freaks. How does that improve Wikipedia ?

Note, for one, that the function of speedy delete does in no way precludes at least contacting the creator of a page if it is unclear what they seem to be trying to do. Most civilized people, including myself, would consider that common courtesy. André437 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

André437, the topic and goal of the page is not clear to me (or at least wasn't when I last checked it--it's too big to open half of the time and gives me a headache when I am able to view it). I will make a list of things wrong in this situation.

1. We don't typically copy and paste articles under new names. Sure, it's done, but not standard.
2. Following that, I'm still not sure what the goal of this page is. Is it the history of the war? The history of the cities and towns involved in the war? Why should this exist separate from the original page?
3. The name is horrible. At the very least the dashes are non-standard. If the civil war is a proper noun it should be capitalized.
4. The page is often too big to load. This is a problem with the original page, too (obviously).

Ansh, I didn't intend to start a discussion about an editor. I intended to start a discussion about an article. There's a difference, therefore I didn't ping Andre. :) Killiondude (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, it's still standard to notify them if you mention that they are the source of an issue you are having - note that the notification template says "regarding an issue with which you may have been involved", not "about you". Anyways, it would be useful and courteous to have him here to explain and discuss things, even if that's been unsuccessful so far. Ansh666 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ansh :

1. I do understand that it is not standard to copy and paste a whole page. It was done with some immediate modifications (such as not transcluding the huge map) to try to eliminate display problems more quickly. Further changes to be done progressively. Doing it this way also makes it easier to avoid mistakes.
2. Currently the total size is so big that the original page doesn't display properly, particularly the references. We are spliting the page to solve this problem. As well, splitting allows viewing and editing to be faster (with less load on the servers, evidently). Older information in the ongoing war is not of as much interest by those following the war. So the idea was to put much of this in another page, with links from the current page to the corresponding part. (ie. Older info about Aleppo seen by a link from Aleppo; older info about Daraa seen from a link from Daraa, etc.) Some of which is already done.
3. The name chosen is logical but not necessarily the most elegant. For the capitalisation, I used what is usually done in french, so no problem changing that. We are open to suggestions. I added the "- history" part since this was to contain older info. Once the war is over, it could be reorganized again. As it stands now, there are already many subpages with a lot less coherance than this new approach.
4. Indeed, the size of the page is the reason for the split. And why I copied the whole page at once instead of many little transfers, to speed up the process. Although I have paused during this "discussion", since reversing changes will be very time-consuming and error-prone, and certainly not helpful to reduce the page size.
5. Note also that having a programming background and being familiar with Mediawiki, I have made an number of suggestions to improve the page that have been mostly implemented by other editors, and only with the concordance of Tradedia, the original author and main editor of the page. I think he has an excellent project and I want to help. I also promised him that if there were any controversy over changes that I would deal with it, since these are largely my suggestions.
6. BTW, if you have any influence on functions available, it would be very nice to be able to have user-defined variables available in a page. Or if you know where to go to discuss this with those who could make such changes ... André437 (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Killiondude: That's a reply to you, not me. Ansh666 18:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had the impression that I was responding to comments by Ansh. Most of the points have already been made to Killiondude, but he doesn't seem to understand. Having read the guidelines, it is unclear why he sees a problem, given the circumstances. He reiterates some of the reasons given for splitting the page. So one would expect him to be supportive, not objecting. In the meantime this split is stalled, since reversals will be very time-consuming and error-prone. The original page is undergoing constant revisions. André437 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to revert move of Galicia (Eastern Europe)

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

The undiscussed moved was reverted and a Requested moves discussion was initiated at the talk page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Few days ago Galicia (Eastern Europe) was moved without discussion to Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe), then to current Galicia (central Europe). Bot fixed the first redirect, so it cannot be undone by non-admin. I request that the article is restored to the original name, and a proper WP:RM is started: this move is controversial and shouldn't be done in the non-discussion way it has. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RM you should list this there as a technical request ("If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below." (underline added)) Since the redirect has been edited, an admin at RM will have to undo it. Just an FYI for the future, but since it is already here, meh. Rgrds. --64.85.215.96 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to Galicia (Eastern Europe) and applied temporary move protection. I'll be leaving WP:ARBEE notices for the two editors who made the recent undiscussed moves. Moves of articles in this part of the world often have national motivations that are sometimes quite openly and frankly expressed on the talk pages. People seem to feel it is more of an honor for their region to be central than eastern, or something. Though these editors may be working in good faith, the net effect of impulsive article moves (when there is a patchwork of nationalities) can be disruptive. The definition of central Europe has been in dispute before. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Martina Moreau has embarked on a unilateral program of moving certain pages that she think fit better under central than eastern Europe. See Special:Log/Martina Moreau for more than a dozen examples dating from 16 November. In my opinion all of these moves should be rolled back. In most cases this can be done without admin assistance and I see that some have already been done. I've left Marina a warning of a block in case of further moves of this type without discussion. She's been on Wikipedia since January but I don't think she gets the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe rollback should have been used when the damage was first discovered but, at this point, Editors have been working yesterday and today to revert and fix the 300+ edits on this one issue that were done on Saturday. I can't say that we got to all of them but I imagine we resolved a good 90%. I don't have rollback rights but I don't think you can rollback all of an Editors edits once others have edited these same pages. It was quite a lot of work to undo manually. It showed me that a well-intentioned but misguided Editor with an entire day to edit Wikipedia can do a lot more damage than a reckless vandal can do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz is absolutely correct regarding rollbacks. Many of the articles had been edited post-move and valid content would have been lost. It's a pity that such drastic changes can't be prevented without impinging on any user's right to edit on a more comprehensive level. I've always been uncomfortable about pushing the 'be bold' line without tempering it with 'but not reckless'. It's a line that gets crossed constantly and thrown back as justification for reworking existing articles, categories, etc. in a destructive (as opposed to constructive) manner all too often. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think, Iryna, that the problem is nipped in the bud when an Editor makes a bold change and then listens to feedback (pro and con) before moving forward. In this case (and others), an Editor sees themselves as taking on a "Project" to fix some mistake they see existing on WP and they devote hours to making corrections everywhere they find them (and I believe Marina got to the point where she thought she had gotten to all references to Galacia). It's amazing what one determined person can do on WP when they are focused.

Sorry if this is off-tangent, as it looks like this situation is resolved, But I'm sure it has come up in the past and will come up again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not off-tangent, Liz. I was thumbing my nose at 'be bold' because it's often misunderstood intentionally, and that's mainly due to my somehow having ended up working predominantly on Slavic articles (which should carry a health hazard warning). Even without the 'be bold', they attract a substantial number of those kinds of people who wouldn't pay attention if you had a gun pointed at them. Apologies, I can't seem to be able to think of a polite euphemism for nationalist-extremist-loonies off the top of my head. Of course the 'be bold' policy shouldn't be changed. I simply believe that despots such as myself should be able to control who's allowed to be bold.

On a serious note, I think I've caught fairly much everything after a final 'seek and destroy' mission. There were only a couple of missed items and a {{distinguish}} broken due to her having mucked up the syntax. Ah, well. 'Stuff' happens. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to appeal. I think I have become a victim of a witch hunt. I have done nothing wrong technically, nor meritorically. Above all - in good faith to straighten things out, which actually members have either asked me to do, or thanked me for doing them. Instead of thanking messages, I was bombarded with unpleasant and abusive statements, from the user Iryna Harpy. I was portrayed as a person who I am certainly not, and there have been all sorts of claims, including the one above, that I wish to "seek and destroy." I disagree with this abusive behavior and I want some justice, because things have gone definitely too far. I agree that if I made edits that some people consider scandalous, because Galicia for these people is a region in eastern Europe, but I certainly will not allow verbal abuse and defamation. I consider taking this up (against Iryna Harpy, and in case I will be unable to obtain her details - Wikipedia) if the issue is not solved by the end of this week. I demand an honest apology on my talkpage from Iryna Harpy or Wikipedia.--Martina Moreau (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you have misread the above statement due to your being upset at the moment. Please re-read the entire thread carefully. Naturally, if you feel that I have abused, harassed, been unjust or demonised you on your talkpage or elsewhere, I would certainly encourage you to submit an official complaint against me. That is precisely what Wikipedia policies, guidelines and procedural protocols are in place for. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can call this a "witchhunt" which is when you look for people who have violated some written or unwritten standard of conduct. In this case, both Iryna and I came upon your edits, we didn't go out searching for them or you. While I still believe you were well-intentioned Martina, you made hundreds and hundreds of edits without seeking community consensus. Geographic designations in this part of Europe have a contentious history on Wikipedia (which you saw when you received a general sanction warning) so it is hard to view your actions as, you have stated elsewhere, "uncontroversial".

Considering that between Iryna and I, we spent at least 9 hours undoing, reverting and correcting all of your edits, I believe you owe both of us a "thank you" for correcting your mistakes. We saved you an entire day's work reverting your misguided edits and if Iryna spoke sharply, it is because it's frustrating to devote so much time to cleaning up someone else's mistakes.

All you had to do to avoid this, Martina, was suggest the change first at WP:EEUROPE, WP:EUROPE or WP:UKRAINE before making your edits. Who knows, you might have eventually won over consensus. But you didn't do this and one editor can't determine the boundaries of different regions of the world based on their own point of view. If you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to interact with other editors on the relevant WikiProject and discuss your edits beforehand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, judging on the wording of one particular user, I think it is completely like a "wicked witch". I did not "violate" them intentionally. You seem curious why this particular error. Well, I have been studying about this part of the world (called Slavonic Studies) and I knew I was doing the right thing. This is what I do best, and this is what people have suggested me to do (Toddy1), when I joined Wikipedia (see my talk page, section in January 2013). Somehow it turned out to be a disappointment for some people, and also me, since it took me a lot of time to get it straight. I ave been honest at every step of this "investigation" but you have to agree with me that this has gone beyond everything - with treating me almost like a criminal, using the words that are semantically not justified.

I would like to think that your reverts will be useful. I have reverted many vandalisms (when people write random text like "I love Jenny" in an article regarding a town in Spain). I'm afraid the evidence to place Galicia in central Europe is too strong on so many different grounds, that your effort will be rather unmarked because obviously my edits have not been vandalisms. They were undiscussed changes to a minor, and rather historical, European region, certainly not vandalisms. If you spent 9 hours reverting, note how much time I spent with them. What if it turns out that this is not the ideal term, again, which is very likely what's going to happen? Or what if we both were wrong and it will be decided that Galicia should have a completely different title, or be subdivided into Eastern Galicia and Western Galicia?

I appreciate your candid nature to undo my work, but I think it was rather out of anger (judging on the messages of yours and Iryna), than any particular merit.

I think I have lost my appetite for Wikipedia for a few weeks now... Still, I would appreciate apology from Iryna.--Martina Moreau (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Martina, I have apologised to fellow Wikipedians before. Misunderstandings and inadvertent offences occur and I am always prepared to acknowledge them when I recognise that I was out of line. My apologies are always sincere and I will not have my hand forced in order to obtain an apology which is not merited. Such behaviour would be ingenuous on my behalf.

While I cannot speak on behalf of Liz, I see absolutely no grounds for your demanding an apology from her.

All I've been able to establish from your various justifications of your actions is that you consider yourself to be an authority in the area of Slavic Studies (as a student). I'm not even going to begin to list my credentials in this area, having over 30 years of research and teaching at university level under my belt, so please don't try to twist your badly informed understanding of how Wikipedia works into actions based on who is the greater authority. The issue at hand is not that I am right and you are wrong, or visa versa, but that you have not followed Wikipedia protocols as regards making unilateral decisions. The best of intentions do not necessarily translate into good outcomes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

While I do not question you are telling the truth, I still think that it is impossible to be unaware of the fact that some older scholars seem to have rather different approach to the issue. These days we do not equate Eastern Bloc with Eastern Europe, and this is what you have been pushing forward. Even when I was a student a decade ago, Galicia was in central Europe, or Central and Eastern Europe. These days geographical approach dominates. Take any map or atlas printed these days in Europe and you will see what I mean. I would like to be able to admire your work, if I knew any paper or book you have published, to review its quality, but judging on your approach and attitude towards me here, I don't really know what to say. I believe you are honest, but you are misguided. Tuition 30 years ago and earlier was very different to tuition today.--188.79.39.190 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Martina, I don't see how you can read our comments and be so hurt and offended. Neither I nor Iryna are "angry", we were frustrated at spending so much time reverting your edits. I apologize if our frustration came out as sarcasm but it was a lot of work. No one said your work was "vandalism", I've repeatedly said that I think the hundreds of edits were done in good faith.

But, it doesn't matter if you (or Iryna, for that matter) are an expert in Slavonic Studies, as I've said repeatedly, the havoc that your editing caused was because you didn't work to get consensus on making this decision and just decided on your own to reassign geographic boundaries. Wikipedia works by determining the consensus views of editors working in a subject, this is a collaborative editing process, especially in areas like Eastern Europe where there have been previous disputes. If you want to write about Central and Eastern Europe and say whatever you want, I recommend you keep a blog or write a book. On Wikipedia, before you make a change like saying Galicia is in Central Europe, not Eastern Europe, you need to talk about it first. I already recommended that you go to the talk pages of WP:EEUROPE, WP:EUROPE or WP:UKRAINE to discuss your proposed change. I am sure they would welcome your participation since you have studied in this area.

All of this advice is meant to help you work more productively at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the warnings which were posted on your Talk Page were posted after all of your editing was finished, as new editors and admins were discovering the problems. So, they didn't have the desired effect of getting you to stop reassigning categories because you were already done but the warnings kept piling up. That's unfortunate. But, as I said, this could have been avoided if you had just discussed these changes first. And that's all I have to say about this. I hope you can get over your hurt feelings and return to editing WP in a productive, collaborative way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Martina (and 188.79.39.190 as I'm not going to directly accuse you of sock puppetry), I apologise if you have somehow confused frustration at having to undo a mass of moves and edits made by you, based on a unilateral decision, with a personal attack. It was never my intention to hurt you but to address the issues of content. To be honest, I'm now far less concerned about the issue under discussion than your personal state of mind (that is, my concerns are for you, the person). Your behaviour would indicate that you are far too emotionally involved with the areas you are editing in Wikipedia. I truly don't mind whether it is called Eastern Europe, Central Europe or Timbuktu so long as it is done according to Wikipedia protocols and consensus. Could I suggest that you take a short break from editing or, at least, continue to use the discussion underway on the Galicia talk page as you have begun to do.

If you wish to make a formal complaint against me, please do so at the appropriate venue. The discussion here has gone on far too long and should be closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to accuse you of letting your scientific rigor loose - Russia may not have the warmest relations with the rest of Europe, but it is very far away from the Cold War (it surprised me you consider CIS as an organisation that is supposedly continuing to be in the Cold War). Despite relations between European countries, all of them are very far from the Cold War, I can assure you, otherwise they wouldn't build ITER. For more information, please see the article European integration. I can understand that you have grown in different times, in central Europe, when it was a part of the Eastern Bloc, in the height of the Cold War, but please acknowledge that geography is not something that we can play with much, and by writing central Europe with miniscule, I referred to the geographical region, rather than political shortcut term for the Eastern Bloc (these change even within a generation).

This is more serious than not logging in once, after closing browser. I think we are humans and we are emotional beings, and if I got emotional at any point, it wasn't because of the articles, but because of the situation in which I was dragged a week ago. Nevertheless, it is not me who displayed the most vivid and aggressive language. If you truly do not mind how Galicia is tagged, then why knowing that it can be considered easily in central Europe, would you spend 9 hours just to revert my edits, just on one detail?

I accept your apology on my talk page if it will be made in any foreseeable future, just to let you know. I would like to report you but it means going through a lot of negative things and I just don't have time for it, I have to say.--Martina Moreau (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You have a disconcerting capacity for twisting what is being conveyed in messages. Now that I am satisfied that you are not in danger of self harm or a breakdown but are merely stubborn and incapable of recognising that your behaviour may be wrong, I will state three things: 1) I was not apologising for my actions but expressing concern over your being unhealthily overemotional and misinterpreting them, so do not expect a personal apology of any description on your talk page or elsewhere; 2) I do not appreciate your taking a snippet of a comment from a talk page and misrepresenting it because you have already overstepped the line and are attacking me rather any disputed content; 3) This is not a forum for teaching others what is correct and what is incorrect as pertains to article-specific content. Now this IS my final missive on this page in order that the discussion be closed. The matter of Central Europe is done and dusted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for speedy deletions

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 could somebody delete the following:

• Manyosen
• Steven Fletcher
• The Shadow over Innsmouth
• The Winter Album ('N Sync album)
• UCI
• Living for the Weekend

They were all marked by me with {{db-move}}, following non-admin closures of move requests. I need them deleted in order to move other pages into their slots, and complete the requests. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: These have all now been deleted, with the exception of The Winter Album ('N Sync album). Thanks to those who carried these out.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Update 2: The Winter Album ('N Sync album) has now been done as well. This request is completed. Thanks again.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: An article doesn't have to be deleted first in order to be moved. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Erpert: It does when the relevant page histories contain more than one edit, as they did in these cases. Graham87 06:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    • To be more exact: If the page itself has exactly one revision, which is just the redirect with no templates on it, then the target of the redirect can be moved without first deleting the redirect. This allows for non-admins to revert moves. Anything else can't - the idea being that the software can't tell for itself what history is relevant and what history isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

RfC closure request

Can someone close this RfC? [1]. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Closed per SNOW. Thanks anyway. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notion Capital

Please will someone userfy Notion Capital, a recent PROD, to User:Pigsonthewing/Notion Capital, where I intend to rewrite and develop it. I believe notability can easily be established. I declare an interest and will do so again when I ask the community to review and republish the improved article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why you have not asked the deleting admin (i.e. me) directly? GiantSnowman 12:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Only that I thought I'd get a more prompt response here. thanks for doing the userfication. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now requested review and restoration of the improved article, at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Notion Capital.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Please don't block me" volume two...

"Please don't block me" was included in my now archived post, but now it's more along the lines of "please answer me". User:TParis is ignoring me (or either he is quite slow, to my mind). The WMF knows who I am. My VPN software might be on right now. But I don't think, even if it is, I've done anything wrong by making this edit from an open proxy (if that's what my VPN software does) because I think there was a misunderstanding in TParis' mind by the verbiage he left on my user talk page. Do I need to escalate this to the WMF legal department to get a straight answer? I'm absolutely befuddled by the volunteer community, if that's who I've been communicating with. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

All I can see from TParis on your talk page is a templated message that's given as part of the process of granting IP block exemption — that's probably why he gave you two section headers, since I'd guess that the template leaves its own header. Please be a little more specific by giving the name of the section whose verbiage you're discussing. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. I see nothing that TParis needs to respond to - you were granted IPBE, I see no action required by anyone, and no response required by anyone, anywhere. Could you provide diffs/links to the EXACT places where you're waiting for things? ES&L 13:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Biosthmors - VPN is not the same as an open proxy. If you are using VPN then your use of IPBE is fine. If you are using an open proxy or TOR, then it is not. But until your last email which I received in the middle of a 102.4 degree fever (notice that I also didn't respond to several others) that I realized you probably are confused what VPN software actually does. So why don't you explain what exactly you are VPN'd into and why you think it's using an open proxy? Whose network are you connecting to? No one is threatening you with a block, certainly not me especially. If IPBE is going to be this stressful to you, would you prefer we just remove it?--v/r - TP 14:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • User:TParis, thanks for your reply and I hope you feel better. I'm not in a rush, so feel free to sit on this. I will go ahead and email you the name of the VPN software that automatically starts when I start my computer. I'd rather not share it publicly. Is that OK? Before I requested the user right, and when the VPN software was activated, it blocked me from editing due to some sort of proxy/open proxy jazz. Because of this auto-blocking, I was prompted to ask for the user right. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And FYI, right now my VPN software is saying it isn't active, but it is partially acting like it is active. I've never seen it behave this way, so I can't exclude the possibility that this very edit might be coming from an open proxy, whatever that means, even though my software says it is not active. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• @Biosthmors: What exactly is the question you want a straight answer to? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) Am I or am I not allowed to edit from an open proxy, due to the user rights request I submitted through the mechanism I used? And 2) does my VPN software use an open proxy? I emailed my software details to TParis. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • No, you shouldn't edit through an open proxy. The addresses you're editing through are not open proxies - they belong to a web hosting company. Many web hosting address ranges have been blocked because they can be used like open proxies, but they can also be used by VPN providers, so as far as I can see, you're fine. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
      • DoRD, you're awesome. Thanks for the clarification. I trust that my VPN software will not get me in trouble then. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Help! Please block User:AvocatoBot

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, please block User:AvocatoBot as soon as possible. The bot is running with over 80 processes on the tool labs login node and makes it unusable for other tool labs users. Thanks. --Dschwen 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that this was thankfully resolved [2]. Legoktm (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Announcing edit requests for template-protected pages

For those admins who sometimes help out with protected edit requests, you may be interested to know that we now have a new template, {{edit template-protected}}, for making edit requests to template-protected pages. These requests can be viewed at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, and can be answered by any editor with the template editor user right. There is also an annotated list of edit requests automatically updated by AnomieBOT at User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable. You can put this on your watchlist to see when new requests have been made. Requests made with the {{edit template-protected}} template won't show up in CAT:EP, so if you think that the category is looking more empty than usual, that may be why. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Transfer to or closure of old account

Back in 2007, I joined Wikipedia under the username Stevoisiak. While I never created a userpage for the account, the edit history can still be viewed. Unfortunately, I have since forgotten my password, and I never associated an email address with the account, so it is inaccessible. So instead, I made a new account, Stevoisiake, which I have used since.

I have read policy pages on username conflicts, and am aware that user accounts cannot be merged, and that under normal circumstances, a user cannot rename his account if the desired username has already been created. So if a merging of the two accounts is not possible, would it be possible to rename my current account if my old account was closed? If so, that is what I would like to do.

I have little concrete proof that I was the one who created the Wikipedia account Stevoisiak. However, what I can prove is that I own the username Stevoisiak on other sites. These include my YouTube account from 2007, my Twitter account, my Steam account from 2008, my Hotmail account, my Gmail account, my TF2 Wiki account from 2010, my DeviantArt account from 2008, and my Reddit account from 2011, among many others.

Thank you for your time.

--Stevoisiak(e) (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't possible to close or delete accounts here. The only thing that can be done in this situation is usurpation, but for that you would need a bureaucrat rather than an administrator. Hut 8.5 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-templated speedy deletion of sourced articles without creator notification

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 initial section title "Implementation of own prods without creator notification" was a mis-description of the problem as pointed out by editors below. Fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised at the closure of discussion of User:Coffee's recent edits above. I would expect a User with this patterns of edits to receive a block, or at least a warning. Irrespective of the the unanimous content on the rest of the issues. As an admin on an academic forum I do not take the view that contributors with tools are exempt from normal contributor standards.

Be that as it may, among the questions (1)-(6) not answered, one related to a technical issue on which I would request clarification. Is it recommended that editors should act on their own prods in the case of sourced stubs (not talking about unsourced BLPs and other priority items - even though those get 7 days), and if it is the case that acting on own prods is recommended, does that void any requirement for a time gap between prod and implementation, or void any requirement to notify article creators so that sourced stubs can be improved? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe your judgement is a little clouded because of his removal of rights a few days ago? I'm not saying for sure if it is but it's possible..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's my view as an admin on an academic forum.

Does anyone know the answer to the question? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. PROD is supposed to be easy-come-easy-go. If you disagree with a PROD deletion you have the right to get it refunded. Since no harm is done, I don't see how it can be seen as disruptive. Reyk _YO! 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:PROD the prodded article should be left for seven days. It also says that the article creator should be notified ("ideally"). The policy page also says "The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator 7 days after nomination." That suggests to me that it should be reviewed by an admin other than the prodder (even if the prodder happens to be an admin). Otherwise it isn't really much of a review. The harm is done if there is no review and articles get deleted improperly. If the article creator or another major contributor isn't aware that the article has been prodded, they don't have an opportunity to make their case or improvements. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that PRODs should not be actioned by the nominator, like AfDs (CSD is different territory). Reyk makes a good point in that WP:REFUND applies, but PRODs are commonly declined by a potential deleting admin, so doing it yourself would remove a rather important, if unofficial, part of the process. Ansh666 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. In fact I wouldn't mind if it were a formal rule that the tagger should not also be the deleter. I might add that even on CSDs I think it poor practice for an admin to simply delete instead of tagging, except in cases like blatant BLP attack pages, and perhaps blatant copyvios. I for one practice "tag & bag" where if I find an untagged page that seems to me to be appropriate for speedy deletion, I tag it in my role as an editor. I only delete in my role as an admin pages that others have tagged, after reviewing them to confirm that I think the deletion appropriate. Oh I also exempt G6 houskeeping, especially redirects deleted to make way for uncontested moves, there is no need to wait for more eyes on those, in my view. DES ^(talk) 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh I should mention, I think it should be required for a PROD or CSD tagger to notify the creator (leaving aside the case where the creator is banned, when there is little point). Even if the creator does not log on in time to contest the action, it provides a record of what happened, instead of a mysterious vanishing of an article. Given the prevalence of scripts for such tagging today, notification is usually no more than one extra click or one preference stetting. If on Cad:CSD patrol I encounter a CSD where no notification has been done, I myself do the notification and do NOT delete the page, even if I otherwise would, I leave it for the next patroller instead, to give the creator some small amount of time. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by involved admin: Just so everyone knows (pinging Candleabracadabra), I never deleted any article that I PRODed myself. So I'm not quite certain what In ictu oculi is talking about. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nor have I. It would defeat the purpose of the procedure. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, and I think you, I, and everyone else here agrees with that. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Since i commented above, i would not want my comment taken as asserting that Coffee has in fact deleted a page that s/he tagged with PROD. I have seen nothing to indicate that this is so. I was merely commenting on best practices in general. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Same here. I wouldn't be able to tell, though, since I can't see deleted revisions. Ansh666 09:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Coffee, then who did prod Bartholomeus Ruloffs, Raffaele Mertes, Turgay Erdener, Phan Văn Hùm and Genie Pace? I had been assuming that you acted on your own A7? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see, no-one proposed deletion of any of those pages. They were all deleted under CSD#A7 without prior tagging. The PROD procedure requires a waiting period, and generally the proposer will not be the deleter. The speedy deletion criteria outline cases where admins may delete articles immediately and without discussion. I see no barrier to an admin deleting a page under the speedy criteria without prior tagging. In both cases, courtesy notification of the article creator is recommended. I hope this helps. Bovlb (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bovlb, thanks, this strikes me as a more helpful answer than "I never deleted any article that I PRODed myself. So I'm not quite certain what In ictu oculi is talking about." Can you please link to where that is recommended for A7s? Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume Coffee did know what you were talking about. PRODs and SPEEDY deletions are quite different things. Deleting an article when you are the one who PRODed it may be a bit dubious, SPEEDY deleting an article without anyone nominating it is probably fairly common and consider normal by most admins. (Notice my wording here which is intentional. You can't delete an article under PROD without it ever having been nominated since it's obviously never a PROD in that case. You can SPEEDY an article if it meets the criteria, there's no real need for a nomination.) So there was likely genuine confusion at the time over what you were talking about, particularly as you had not specified which articles you were referring to at the time.

In other words, it's not unresonable for people to be confused when your explaination for what happend was wrong (or was something which never happened) and they have no easy way, without perhaps checking previous discussions and actions very carefully, to try and figure out what you're actually referring to.

I don't think anyone said there are any special recommendations for dealing A7s. Most of what was stated applies to all speedy deletions, as explained in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and also Wikipedia:Deletion process, with perhaps the exception that there are a few cases where notification is not required.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne the previous discussion was on this current page when I said "above", it has only since been archived into Archive256#User:Coffee. Also "in the case of sourced stubs (not talking about unsourced BLPs and other priority items - even though those get 7 days)," refers to the case of sourced stubs deleted without notification as mentioned above. No other case has been referenced.

Thank you for the comments on A7, which are informative. How then does the guidance In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion. work? It would seem pointless to notify The article you created has already gone. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

When deleting an article under A7, it is common practice to notify the creator with a template like this one. This suggests that you can recreate the article if you can fix the problem. If you feel an article was deleted in error, I would suggest contacting the deleting admin in the first instance, and if that doesn't work out, fling a request for undeletion for deletion review.

As Nil, says, A7 and the examples you gave are concerned with speedy deletion which is entirely separate from proposed deletion. It looks like you've been confusing the two processes (and it is somewhat confusing to have three or more processes for deletion), and I think that has made it difficult for people to respond helpfully to this thread. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct - evidently this section was mistitled since I have understood the expression "prod" to mean any Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD) including proposed deletion using WP:SPEEDY templates. Also with several 1000s of article creations I have no experience of being followed by an editor silently deleting Google Book sourced stubs in this manner so had no exposure to the practice of implementing own A7s without notifications.

I have changed the section description to replace "Implementation of own prods" to "Non-templated speedy deletion of sourced articles" which I hope reflects your comments, and is a more accurate and complete description of the problem.

I am still not much nearer to understanding what went wrong in this series of un-notified blanking of print-sourced articles. Was it weak wording in the guidelines? or is it a result of replying to the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingdian (band) by pasting the text of the relevant guideline for examination? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to recap the situation so that we can identify the outstanding areas of concern and work to resolve them.

• On 2013-11-18, Coffee deleted five articles under WP:CSD#A7. [3] All five articles were created by In ictu oculi between 2013-10-17 and 2013-11-10. The deletions were not preceded by any CSD or PROD tagging. Coffee did not notify In ictu oculi about these deletions. At the time of deletion, all five articles were stubs, but included at least one offline source.
• So far as I can see, In ictu oculi did not raise these deletions either directly with the deleting admin, or with deletion review.
• At the same time, Coffee removed the autopatroller right from In ictu oculi, which was notified. In ictu oculi objected on his own talk page, but there was no response from Coffee.
• On 2013-11-19, Candleabracadabra started a thread on this board regarding In ictu oculi's autopatroller right (and other interactions between Coffee and Candleabracadabra). As a result, the rights were restored and all five articles were undeleted.

There are a number of interleaved issues here. The title you have given this section appears to identify the following issues:

1. Speedy deletion was not preceded by the addition of a template.
2. Articles were speedy deleted under A7 despite having sources.
3. Creator was not notified about the speedy deletion.

Is that a fair summary? Which issues do you feel still require resolution? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to note in the summary "So far as I can see, In ictu oculi did not raise these deletions either directly with the deleting admin, or with deletion review." - part of the problem was that User:Coffee did not indicate these deletions before going straight to moving to removal of user rights. It was left to other users to dig through Coffee's contributions and find them.

Also the summary is only half the history, the history goes back to this edit on 7 November where I responded to User Coffee's first AfD by pasting the guideline I believe it is this AfD that started Coffee's subsequent edits.

The issues which I feel still require resolution would be clarification of whether (1) non-templated speedy deletion of sourced articles without creator notification is appropriate (2) is User Coffee encouraged or disencouraged to do the same again to other long-standing Users. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you outlining (potential) issues OP has. I will, as an uninvolved admin, leave my two cents here for what it's worth. Admins do not need to add a template to an article that s/he deems meets the criteria for speedy deletion (hence the word "speedy" in the title). Again, speaking generally, articles that have references can still be deleted; it's a case-by-case thing. Lastly, notifying the article creator is usually a GoodThing™ but not always done (nor mandated). Killiondude (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• To my understanding, I had already explained all of this in the previous thread... If anyone can point out where I missed something I'll gladly clarify further. But, at the moment this seems to just be a repetition of the previous thread, whereby any further points by myself here would be simply redundant. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coffee, I did not mean to imply otherwise. The OP clearly feels that there is some unresolved issue, so I 'm trying my best to help them express it. Perhaps we won't be able to resolve it any further here, but hopefully we can at least reduce the frustration they're obviously feeling. Bovlb (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I feel violated. I could describe it that a User with only 6 stub creations and 18,942 edits followed a fellow editor making unnotified deletions and AfDs (e.g. of 9 Google Book-sourced stub articles, then misused admin tools to remove autopatroller from a User with 1,000 article creations none of which, to the best of my recollection, have ever been deleted or AfDed. This felt like WP:STALKING followed by an attack.

Also the issue of what appears to be a threat on User:Candleabracadabra's Talk page "Simply stating that sources exist, without providing them, is doing no more than making a vote which is irrelevant. As there weren't any sources provided for this article, I've deleted the article per the consensus in the discussion. Next time, please try to actually back up your arguments at AFD or they may be considered disruptive". - "or they may be considered disruptive" for stating that sources exist in a AFD debate? Seriously?

But what concerns me most is the User's completely unapologetic "run of the mill" attitude, as seen here in reply to User:StAnselm. If this behaviour is "run of the mill", then it suggests that this User has probably done it before and will do it again. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel violated, and regret that nothing I can say here will be adequate to salve that. With all due respect, a section on a board like this one isn't a good way to resolve multiple unrelated issues, so I hope you'll forgive me if I do not address the interactions between Coffee and Candleabracadabra further. Also, while I have the greatest respect for content contributors, I feel that we can more usefully discuss the actions involved here without comparing edit counts.

It seems to me that you are identifying the following issues:

You were not notified about the speedy deletions of your five articles

Coffee already explained in the earlier thread that they had intended you be notified and believed Twinkle would do so automatically. Twinkle preferences include a section under "Speedy deletion (CSD)" saying "Notify page creator only when tagging with these criteria:" where A7 is (I believe) checked by default. As I understand it, creator notification only takes place if this box is checked and also the "Notify page creator if possible" box is checked on the Twinkle CSD box. The latter box is checked by default when "Tag page only, don't delete" is checked, but is greyed out otherwise. I don't understand why that should be the case.

Articles were speedily deleted under A7 despite being sourced to books

Coffee's position is that the articles made no claim of notability. I personally would not have speedy deleted these articles, but their claim to significance is definitely borderline and I can see a good faith basis for Coffee's position. Sources and references are not an explicit part of the A7 criteria, although Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance does say that "the inclusion of reliable secondary sources sources may itself be an indication of significance". All five articles have now been undeleted, which reflects an assessment by those admins that the subjects are likely notable, and not necessarily an assessment that they included claims of notability at the time of deletion.

Speedy deletion is intended not only to be a lightweight way to delete qualifying articles, but also to allow for lightweight reversal. We'll never know now, but I suspect that had you simply contacted Coffee (or deletion review) promising to improve the claims of notability, then they would have been undeleted at least as swiftly.

An admin followed your contributions to delete five articles in one go

If you find a deletion-worthy article, it is normal practice to review other contributions by the same editor. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that these articles did qualify for A7, then such "following" is entirely appropriate, I'm afraid.

Your autopatroller right was removed, and this was described as "run of the mill"

Again, if we assume that the articles did qualify for A7, then it makes sense to me that the creator of five speedy-deletable articles in a few weeks should have their contributions scrutinized more closely by the community. Perhaps Coffee should have warned you. Perhaps they felt the issue had already been raised with you.

So, looking narrowly at these events, it comes down to some unexpected behaviour by Twinkle, and a disagreement about whether book-sourced stubs can qualify for A7. I recommend that:

• The Twinkle notification issue be investigated further for everyone's benefit;
• In ictu oculi tries to create articles that are less stubby, and include a clear claim of significance; and
• Administrators applying A7 consider the significance indicated by sources.

I hope this is helpful to you. Bovlb (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bovlb,

I'm sure you mean well, but not really, no, I was there remember, you weren't. So for example you've missed the first event in the chain.

Do you mind, please excuse me, can I just ask does your role replying here relate to a function of Wikipedia help desk volunteers, Wikipedian recent changes patrollers? Or as an article contributor here as I am? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If Bolvb's fairly comprehensive assessment (with which I concur, I might add) hasn't helped you, then what exactly are you looking for? You opened this thread to ask whether users could act on their own PRODs, and when it was established that you had confused the PROD process and the speedy deletion process, continued to ask whether admins could delete articles under the sppedy deletion criteria without first tagging them or notifying the page creator - you have been answered: yes on both counts. If your purpose in continuing this thread is, as it appears to me, to angle again for some sort of sanctions against Coffee, then the response will be the same as in the previous thread on that subject. If you want clarification of some issue beyond what Bolvb has explained above, then you need to ask for it, instead of simply claiming that you haven't been helped. What, precisely, do you want? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, I want it not to happen to other article contributors. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

But by all means close the section as the original question I asked has been answered. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I have restored two comments by in ictu oculi apparently deleted twice in error by editors intending to delete a different section. Bovlb (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Anime and Manga RfC - Update, request for closure

I had very much hoped that the Anime and manga franchise coverage RfC could resolve the content and conduct disputes between ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, other Anime and Manga WikiProject participants, and which had spawned several threads on this board and AN/I several over the past few years. Unfortunately, due to an evaporation of goodwill and a renewing of open hostilities between the involved parties, I no longer believe that the RfC will be fruitful, and have withdrawn from the RfC (announcement).

If any uninvolved admins would like to close that RfC, I would greatly appreciate your efforts. To those parties that were planning on taking the issue to ArbCom, and put those plans on hold because of the RfC, I no longer have any objections to you continuing forward with those plans.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not go down this road. An unrelated dispute blown out of proportions by a third party should not be the nail in the coffin for the RFC.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sven Manguard So, with the RfC that was proposed during the last drag out fight at AN* was had between the involved editors has failed are you willing to consider the Scorched Earth topic/interaction bans that were proposed last time?

Topic/Interaction bans were indefinite topic (broadly construed over Anime,Manga,Japanese Culture) and interaction (Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri)

Also you forgot to notify Chris. I have taken care of this for you. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur: I really didn't want to get into this before the ArbCom case, but if we can set up something that will prevent an ArbCom case, that's less stress for everyone.

Ultimately, my personal feeling is that the way that Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri seem to get at each other all the time, all over the project, at the very least an indefinite interaction ban is needed. But I'm not sure that goes far enough. At the RfC page, Ryulong objected to my, for lack of a better term, giving up on the proceedings by saying that "A dispute regarding the content of race in America should not end this discussion at all". He's missing my point. Somehow the two of them managed to find each other in a dispute that is entirely separated from Anime and Manga, in an area that, as far as I know, neither of them worked in before. ChrisGualtieri made a revert on that (Knockout (violent game))page eight days before using automated tools, and might have had it on his watchlist, but if he saw Ryulong come along and start making major changes, he should have backed off and let someone else handle it. Ryulong, once he saw that ChrisGualtieri was reverting him, should have backed off and let someone else handle it. The two of them should know that every time they edit the same article, they fight. And yet they wind up doing it anyways.

I would support the following package of sanctions:

• An two-way interaction ban between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from anime and manga topics (but not on Japanese culture topics) for both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from deletion and merge discussions for both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A 1RR restriction for both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (for manual edits only, not counting vandalism fighting using tools)
• All restrictions are indefinite, but can be appealed after at least six months

I don't think anything short of that will solve the problem. Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri need to stay away from each other, and need to stay out of the area that their intractable dispute has poisoned, and need to stay away from the behaviors (revert warring and deletion/merge discussions) have led to their battleground mentality. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I had added Japanese culture in the package for the reason that the topics of Anime and Manga could be wiki-lawyered around and proxy fights on "Reactions to PROPERTY" type articles. I foresee the fight being carried to these topics as one editor or annother "claims" it for their own which excludes the other from editing the page. I do agree that the 6 month appeal of sanctions is appropriate, but as was mentioned in the last AN thread, there were Diva-like threats, so I don't expect a great improvement in the conduct of these editors Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe you need to include Lucia Black in any sanctions, and propose the following tweaks:

• Two-way and three-way interaction bans between any combination of Lucia Black, Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from anime and manga topics (but not on Japanese culture topics) for Lucia, Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from deletion and merge discussions for Lucia, Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A 1RR restriction for Lucia Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (for manual edits only, not counting vandalism fighting using tools)
• All restrictions are indefinite, but can be appealed after at least twelve months
• Ryulong to be prohibited from obtaining or using Rollback for at least twelve months following misuse of the tool to edit war recently (for which he was blocked for 24 hours).

The topic bans I feel need to specifically include a ban on vandal fighting on those topics, because I'm far from convinced they wouldn't use that as an excuse to revert edits by others and wikilawyer their way around the topic ban.

There needs to be a standard set of sanctions, rapidly increasing in duration each time. Nick (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in involving me. My topic ban had just been relieved. Unless you find more evidence of innapropriate behaviour coming fro m me between Chris and Ryulong, i find it to be undeserved. AKA Double jeopardy.Lucia Black (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nick: The reason why I haven't included Lucia in the set is from my perspective since she came off the official topic ban, she's kept her head down for the most part (and hadn't boiled over to AN*. She's been tangentially references in this ongoing discussion, but without digging into the individual atoms of the current dispute, I'm going to assume that she's taken the advice of the previous topic ban and is considering her actions carefully. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(←) Lucia Black has a point here. Past sanctions and the behavior that caused them are, in and of themselves, not grounds for future sanctions. Otherwise, what is the point of setting expiration dates on sanctions? If Lucia Black becomes a problem editor in the area, it would be easy enough to add her in, but we should not be doing that until there's evidence of that. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• sigh* What a surprise. I predicted this would end up at arbcom eventually. At the core you have Chris who wants to improve (and has, massively) the quality of Wikipedia's manga and anime articles, faced with Ryulong who wants to keep them in some sort of stasis of mediocrity. I have generally supported Chris since I encountered him because of his intent and willingness to take on a task against entrenched opposition. Mediation was never going to work, because it does not matter what reasoning or policy based discussion Chris uses with Ryulong, Ryulong just changes position and comes back with a different reason not to improve the articles. In short, interaction ban yes, but dont go topic banning one of the few people actually willing to put in the hard work on bringing the quality up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment from ChrisGualtieri - Ryulong and I have already resolved our issues in private two days ago. We have both come to an agreement about the two project spaces. Ryulong himself will make that clear - and we did so right after his 24 block from AN3 that I did not file. I was about to bring it Arb Com, it was ready to go and save for Ryulong's contacting of me... I was going to do that instead of letting another drama like this occur. Ryulong has asked for assistance in his editing space and acknowledges that A&M is equally problematic - we may disagree, but we have finally agreed that neither is out to destroy Wikipedia and if becoming his ally on the admittedly terrible Tokusatsu articles than the MOSAM situation and the entire A&M dispute has come to an end. And don't consider Lucia Black in this thing at all. We've patched that up and worked together to get Ghost in the Shell (video game) to near GA standards and Ghost in the Shell (film) is now a GA and that was a joint effort. I'm not out to make enemies and the three of us have finally understood each other. Close the RFC, but not because it failed, but because the disagreement has been resolved and all parties acknowledge the communities consensus. The metrics may not be worked out, but I feel that this rough period is over and some third-party dispute on a page I responded to an editor's request online should not have been the "kill" action. My thin-skin about a certain "topic" is more of my own problem - and Ryulong did not intend it as such. And contrary to what some people have expressed - I do not want Ryulong gone, while I was considering Arb Com to make the decision, it seems unnecessary. Everyone can drop the pitch forks and look forward to 30 A&M GA's making their way up as soon as the Tokusatsu thing is dealt with to Ryulong's satisfaction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  I did indeed contact ChrisGualtieri offsite two days ago and we came to an agreement as to what should be done and I implored for his assistance in cleaning up another topic area. Also, Nick, your statement that I should be banned from obtaining rollback rights is unfounded, as in the dispute that I was blocked for edit warring recently I did not use said rights in the first place. I don't see why it had to be revoked in the first place but whatever. I should be using the installed twinkle rollback for everything that I had been using rollback in the first place. Only in death, your summarization of what you see as my position on this site is insulting. I do not want these pages to "stagnate". I just have a different opinion as to how they should be laid out. And call it WP:Diva if you want but a topic ban from my entire editing area will drive me off the site for good. This place isn't worth the stress it causes.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't buy it, honestly. Your willingness to cooperate with each other appears to be directly proportional to how close the two of you are to being sanctioned. How many times is this now that you've resolved your issues? Why couldn't these issues have been resolved weeks ago when the RfC was started, or a few weeks after that when the two of you started participating in the second part of the RfC? Why couldn't you have worked out your differences before the blowout that led to the discussion that led to the RfC? Or after any of the previous blowouts before that? In talking with other users since starting this thread, the consistent theme that I've gotten is that everyone else got tired of the two of you a long time ago, and that trying to broker a solution that kept the two of you from getting topic or site banned was never going to work. Right now, call me jaded, but I find myself agreeing with them.

You want to convince me that this is real? Fine, here's what to do. I want both of you to voluntarily accept the interaction and topic bans that I set out above, as a year-long suspended sentence. As long as the two of you either work together without fighting, or simply stay away from each other, until the end of 2014, the sanctions won't be applied. But if the two of you pick up where you left off before this began, and you two get dragged back to this page for fighting with each other or causing disruption to Anime and Manga topics through battleground behavior (edit warring, merging and splitting articles without getting prior consensus, etc.), and an uninvolved admin agrees that you've crossed the line, then the package of sanctions goes into effect. No arguments, no last minute reconciliations, the package goes into effect and stays in effect for at least six months.

If you agree to that, I'll give you one more chance. If not, as far as I'm concerned, you had your last chance at the RfC and blew it. Heck, at this point I'm not sure that the rest of the community will even buy this as a solution, but if it solves the problems you two are causing, they might. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm an unrelated third-party in all of this. Ryu and Chris may remember me as that guy that pops up from time to time when discussions like this happen. If I may add my two cents, I've been watching a good portion of this drama unfold between Ryu and various parties ever since I was alerted to his ongoing (at the time) habit of reacting fairly confrontational with other editors. I was surprised to learn that Ryu is a former administrator; I would never expect the kind of quarreling he's done from an admin, former or otherwise. I then popped up when Ryu had an AN/I discussion started about him concerning said behavior. Ryu said he would straighten up his act and I thought it was a good intervention on all sides. But lo and behold, after that we have a gigantic RfC, a 24-hour block, removal of Rollback rights and a slew of AfD's created by Chris that seemed personally directed at Ryu.

This entire thing is a mess. As it stands from my perspective, Ryu's been taking far too much personal stake in his edits and reacts very arrogantly towards others. On the other hand, it seems like Chris is something of an enabler that just pours fuel on the fire to continue this drama between them. While I do not have the entire scope of the problem, from what it sounds like to me, this 'scorched earth' idea may just be the best way to go. It's unfortunate that two passionate editors should be blocked/heavily restricted for a long span of time, but with the way things have gone, it seems necessary. As I said on Ryu's AN/I, I don't think either of them are "bad" editors, but their passion for editing can very quickly turn heated. Antoshi ☏ ★ 04:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong actually voted to delete the card articles I tagged with deletion. These are ones he actually made.[4][5][6] We discussed this and some of the others should be merged instead of being deleted. I think only one was really questionable on his end and I've asked for it to be withdrawn.[7] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• We have never resolved our problems prior. This isn't some "let's be buddies" for the moment and go back to fighting one another. As I write this, I am trying to get WP:TOKUSATSU's Wikiproject setup working so its not such a pain to maintain it. The two of us may not particularly agree on everything, but we both recognize that each other wants Wikipedia to be better and Ryulong has asked for help in the area - I'm willing to wade into something I don't understand and try and help because Ryulong agreed that MOSAM needs an overhaul and we'll work it out AFTER Tokusatsu is fixed. Ryulong's daily tasks are overwhelming for any editor and I don't think many of us (I know I sure didn't) understand how bad some of these articles get when he turns his back away. Though with that being said... I don't think "fear" is a great weapon to wield, when my differences with Lucia were resolved without some suspended noose around our necks. This isn't the Cuban missile crisis and given that the community would either be done with one or both of us than resolve the problem has shown a clearly different and alternate resolution: Either work together or one or both of our topic areas get much much worse. I don't personally like the thought, but the last "issue" in the project space has been resolved through the calm interactions of each other. If the "RFC" must be closed by this mess, it wasn't going to change that both of us acted civilly and proper and a clear consensus on the main issue was resolved and no amount of time was going to get a further metric for it. And I think the fact Ryulong hasn't "blown up" over nominating over a dozen articles for AFD and single-handedly altering and building up the Wikiproject's categories and tagging, labeling and sorting them is a pretty good sign that we are working together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And honestly Sven, I told you we resolved our issues before your dramatic post about us. The two of us worked it out and hence my surprise when I found this. Though I have been watching that Knockout page since November 12th.[8] I noticed an IP inserting racially charged text not found in the specific source and make a note at User_talk:72.92.132.215, he reverted me than reverted himself and I thanked him for doing so and dropped a welcome/help template. Race is a sensitive subject for me and I took offense without realizing Ryulong did not intend it as such, its not the end of the world. Misunderstandings happen, but the "issue" was not even tangentially related to A&M or Japan, so I'm not sure why there is this drama when we haven't done anything "dramatic" since prior to the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • By bringing up off-Wiki conversations, you are putting me in a difficult position, ChrisGualtieri. I strongly believe that, unless the other party agrees to it, off-Wiki conversations should remain off-Wiki. I hadn't planned on mentioning it publicly, but I will say that I had a forty minute long conversation over IRC with someone closely involved in this dispute, which took place immediately before I withdrew from the RfC and started this thread. That conversation is also why I am reluctant to believe that you and Ryulong have truly patched things up. Unless this issue goes to ArbCom, in which case I will likely be compelled to provide details, I won't publicly reveal who I had the conversation with or what it was about. While it would make my life much easier, and would make it very clear to everyone else exactly why I lost confidence in this issue being resolved, it would also change this conversation in a way that doesn't benefit anyone. I was content to sit on that conversation, to not let everyone know that there even was one, and take the PR hit that came with that. I know that the 3RR block thing wasn't a big enough deal on its own to derail the RfC, but I was willing to pretend that it was the main reason that I backed out of the RfC, because, despite my better judgement, I still want to see this thing resolved without a bunch of people getting banned. I'm at my wits end though; I'm tired of trying to broker a solution here. At this point, I really don't care how it's resolved. But if I see another ChrisGualtieri vs. Ryulong thread on AN or AN/I, ever again, I'm going to recommend a full site ban for at least a year. The community has had enough, and I'm not going to fight to keep the two of you around any more. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Off-wiki? Huh? Since you sorta spilled that contact I'll be open, its no shame nor secret. I mentioned it in IRC on 1 line; but you did not respond to it and I thought you didn't even read it. It was hours before my question on portals was answered. Now if a question on portals is privileged, I apologize, but I don't care about IRC or whatever misunderstanding that exists here. Forty minute long conversation about us? So what. I made my peace at A&M and that was what I meant - IRC is semi-offwiki, semi-on, but I don't know what provoked the response above. Whatever conversation you had, it obviously upset you. I still believe the RFC was a success and mirror Ryulong's comment about it - which is why given the situation I was surprised about the above drama. If you know that some 3RR thing which is unrelated to the A&M and not even filed by me is enough to sink everything that's a bit sad. Though that misunderstanding preceded our breakthrough and alliance - the community has demonstrated that it cannot resolve our problems satisfactorily and that whatever disagreements we individually have no amount of DRN, RFC, ANI, Mediation and likely ArbCom will ever result in something mutually agreeable. Yes, I was tempted by the community's ability to force a decision to end it by overwhelming consensus, but aside from an already seemingly agreed upon stance the actual specifics are of only interest to about four people. For the next six months, let us work together - if it breaksdown fast-track an interaction ban, but I don't say "things are resolved" without meaning it. Ryulong's stressed out enough by this too, but its been handled and if the Tokusatsu alliance and positive response to the AFDs and Ryulong's own desire to reform the area isn't indicative that we've come to a clear agreement I don't know what is. Just give it a few months off the drama pages and you'll see that this is for real. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
        • The conversation you're referring to is most certainly not the one I was referring to. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(←) Alright, I've had enough. If an admin wants to close the RfC, that would be much appreciated. There are people that see a workable consensus there, and if that's the case, we should definitely not waste it. I personally, however, am beyond done with this issue. I put a lot of time into the RfC, I put a lot of time into this discussion, and I don't feel that any of that time ended up resulting in something constructive. Until the ArbCom case, I have no intention of speaking to or about Ryulong or ChrisGualtieri again, and I have no plans to become further involved in this or any related threads. To whomever winds up picking up the pieces here, good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning ArbCom when Chris and I have buried the hatchet?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because the effort you two make to get along (as mentioned above) appears to be directly proportional to how close the two of you are to being sanctioned. Existing community policies have not succeeded in diffusing the no holds barred battle field that you two present, and the last time community endorsed sanctions were proposed they were short circuited for this last chance RFC. In my counting this has been the 3rd or 4th RFC held over this issue with each one being a failure to get the space to be settled down and to have you and Chris not at each others throats and at a various form of DR (DRN,3O, RfC, AN, AN/EW, ANI, etc.) every few weeks because one or the other throws a tantrum and those outside the topic space have to sort it out. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the RFC served its purpose. Sven's absolute refusal to participate in it any further shouldn't mean ArbCom is the next step to resolving a dispute that has been dealt with in private.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Backwards text vandalism

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

Please be wary of "backwards text" vandalism, see above for examples.

The vandalism changes the text to backwards, but without any additions or removals it doesn't show up as really anything modified as far as green/red text added/subtracted.

Dunno if there's a specific abuse filter or vandalism monitor way to check for this.

Perhaps someone could help and alert vandal patrol boards about this?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally try to take a look at "(0)" edits on my watchlist, just because of nonsense like this (although I've never seen this specific kind of vandalism). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ykaens yrev woH... I've blocked the IP listed above. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

How is that done? The code looks as if nothing got changed, unlike if I spent a ridiculous amount of time to retype everything backward. Perhaps the insertion of some weird control character meant to support Bi-directional text? Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

lmth.rotareneG-txeT-esreveR/moc.cinahcemtxet//:ptth gnidulcni ,gniht fo tros siht od taht seitilitu ffo dna enilno suoirav era erehT .dnuora dehctiws gnieb yllaer era srettel eht ,oN _{Hint: click on the link; it still works)} --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nytend, they are adding a Unicode format charater, such as a right-to-left mark. It adds three bytes (the size of the RLM in UTF-8) to the file size, but it is a zero-width formatting character, so it does not show up as a visible new character in a diff, and it has no effect beyond a new line. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder, WP:VisualEditor has had at least one bug that causes this unexpectedly, and bug regressions are an unfortunate fact of life. Usually, people notice the problem and try to fix it before saving, but if you see this on an edit tagged with "VisualEditor", then please let me know at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If bug regressions are an unfortunate fact of life, the developers and testers need to start running an automated regression test every night. This changes the fact of life into a fairly rare occurrence. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Nikkimaria

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,

This user refuses to explain why he finds the sources unrilable despite my efforts in his talk page and continues to edit war [9] [10] [11]. If you folks can have him act more "diplomatically", it would be very appreciated. PS. One of the sources that he removes constantly is published by Oxford University Press.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nikki's changes look sensible to me, and your claim that she hasn't explained why she made them seems entirely baseless given that discussion on her talk page and Talk:Husayn ibn Ali#Bringing back sourced content. I'm not seeing any arguments from you on her talk page or the article talk pages about why this content should be in the article. Escalating a low-level content dispute instead of justifying your position in the discussion on the topic is poor practice, as is starting a thread about an editor here without bothering to notify them (I've just notified Nikki). Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I informed her before you[12].--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC). Also, I would like to know your opinion on edit-warring, specially when it comes from an admin. That being said, I will go ahead and explain in the talk page why I think Oxford University Press is reliable and why people like Edward Gibbon, and Charles Dickens are notable enough to include their opinion (mirrored by a secondary source) in the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that you haven't actually understood my objection; nevertheless, this conversation belongs elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in the discussion. That is most important. I ported over our conversation from your talk page to the article's talk page and we can continue from there.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

She was already engaging in discussion... Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin action requested

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

---

Could an Admin please review and take action on consensus violation at ANI. I don't want it to get archived without any action taken. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Closed and editor warned. JodyB _talk 16:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Protected redirect

I would like to redirect BIIT to Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi#Barani Institute of Information Technology. Also Barani Institute of Information Technology (if that page is protected, I haven't looked yet) to Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi#Barani Institute of Information Technology. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

request for closure

The following RFC was opened on September 6th. I requested closure at WP:ANRFC on October 12th but have not gotten a response. Could an admin please close? Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?

Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

James McGibney

Would an admin please review the pending change to James McGibney. The article is fully protected as well as PC2 protected so a non-admin won't be able to review it. Given it could be seen as editing through protection in an edit war maybe it could be accepted with a comment like 'PC not used during disputes so this edit would be there anyway'. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I accepted all revisions since all of them are fine with the WP:PC point of view. The rest should belong to the yalk page of the article or possible even a block log, but there is no BLP policy violations in the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an active sock investigation [[13]] regarding this and also a request for review at WP:BLPN. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed full protection since it seems that some more cleanup might be needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Long-term "Alvin and the Chipmunks" vandal under different IP addresses

Apologies. I have just realised that my earlier post a couple of minutes ago about this vandal would have been better posted in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents section.

I have now transferred the content into that section. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, when a report is titled "long-term Alvin and the Chipmunks vandal" someone has jumped the shark. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

History-merging and page-moving requests

• While my computer has been down for 3 days, the work in Category:Candidates for history merging and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has piled up. Please, does ANY admin except me do history-merging and obstructed page moves??? It is 11.55 pm here in England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  I know how to do history merges, but I generally don't keep an eye on the category. Feel free to ping me if you're going to be away from Wikipedia again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Elexis Monroe (new information)

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.

---

• Normally I would make a temporary undeletion request at WP:DRV, but that was tried already in the past. Anyway, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I think the article should be restored because now that the 2014 XBIZ Award nominations have been announced, the subject has been nominated for two new non-scene-related awards (Girl/Girl Performer of the Year and Best Actress), thus passing WP:PORNBIO. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 14:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 14:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is forum shopping of the worst kind Erpert. You don't like what DRV says so you come here. DRV's view was broadly endorsed in the subsequent drama fest you opened here and PORNBIO is now tagged as disputed. So lets just cut to the chase. Have you got any decent secondary sourcing that would allow this individual to meet GNG? If not, this is just wash rinse and repeating what we already did. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Articlespace editnotices

Per the recent Featured article review of the Natalee Holloway article, this articlespace editnotice (since removed) came to my attention:

• Edit notice on Holloway.

It was on the article for more than three years. I raised this query in a thread at ANI, but got no response; since the template was removed three days ago, it is no longer an "incident", but there are still issues to be clarified.

I had never encountered such an editnotice in articlespace, and didn't realize it could even be done. When I investigated, I learned that a) only an admin can place or edit an editnotice in articlespace, and b) there are editnotices on many articles where there are arbcom sanctions in place. I am not aware of any FA or article where there are not sanctions in place having a "warning" notice to this effect, although I have found some that include a mention of the date formatting used in the article.

Besides needing clarification on the issue of whether this level of "warning" about editing an FA because, essentially, "admins are watching" is appropriate or should be happening on other FAs, I'd also like followup on a) whether the most involved admin with the article should be placing an editnotice like this or who can place them, and b) considering our stance on admins being just like any other editor patrolling an article except as it relates to the use of tools, why the wording about "admins" having to clean up (anyone can clean up), which might be intimidating and off-putting. If this went on in an FA without even me (considering my involvement in the FA process) knowing it, how many other FAs might have followed suit? Others might now realize they can do this, or have done this. Here we have the ability on Wikipedia for an admin to influence editing on an article where s/he is the principle editor, without the broader community even becoming aware of it unless they edit the article.

Should we have these kinds of editnotices, should they be placed by admins involved with the article, and is there a way for us to find out how many of these are out there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of editnotices, but many of them simply notify editors of existing discretionary sanctions (e.g. on Israeli-Palestinian articles). The editnotice in question probably crossed the line into inappropriateness, but since it's been blanked (and given the level of acrimony in the recent WP:AN/I discussion) it's probably better to focus on the more general question of appropriate guidelines for editnotices. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely the problem: there is not much said at Wikipedia:Editnotice. (We editconflicted as I was cleaning up my post to make it more general-- I had copied it from the earlier ANI which was too specific.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

From my experience edit notices are increasingly used in place of hidden comments, particularly for issues which affect most of the article or in recent articles on developing situations, to remind edits to require proper sourcing etc. Probably the strange thing about that edit notice was the mention of admins, it did seem out of place since it won't just be admins fixing the problems. I don't personally see a problem with reminding edits that poor quality may mean a burder on other editors. IIRC an editnotice was used in the Bradley Manning article while fullprotection was applied, that seems to be one of the few cases when mentioning admins would be appropriate. Perhaps editnotices are less important for FAs although they could potentially be cases without sanctions where they would be helpful.Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Editnotices/Page/Amy Pond for an example I'm thinking of or Template:Editnotices/Page/Aslan (disambiguation) or Template:Editnotices/Page/69 (sex position) (not ones I think I've seen myself before) or Template:Editnotices/Page/Anders Behring Breivik (which I may have seen and I do know there was a fair amount of discussion over the issue if not the editnotice). Of course other than date formatting issues, their use in language ones is perhaps also not uncommon, e.g. Template:Editnotices/Page/Air New Zealand and perhaps more important Template:Editnotices/Page/Ape Escape (video game). Something slightly different but which was I presume deemed useful at least at one time Template:Editnotices/Page/Antonin Scalia.

P.S. Without commenting specifically on the appropriateness of any of these cases, nor suggesting that we as a community have to use them, wasn't one of the intentions of the development of editable editnotices their usage on articles? At least I've always assumed that since I first saw them since while helpful, they seemed not so important for talk pages, noticeboards, userpages etc particularly from the foundation POV. I also see from Wikipedia:Editnotice that there are a bunch of templates Template:Editnotice templates and Category:Editnotice templates, I think at least two of the earlier examples used these.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for more samples, which are all illuminating examples of effective ways to use editnotices. I wasn't even aware before the Holloway FAR that they were placed on articles, and now see that there are gaps in the guidelines about their application in articles at Wikipedia:Editnotice. Since this example has come to light, I am thinking we will see more FAs using them, with wording along the lines of WP:OWN#Featured articles. That is the one of the areas where I think some admin discussion of the broader issues would be helpful; that page needs to be expanded to include discussion of appropriate use of the template in ways that don't further ownership. I edit numerous Featured articles that have recurring issues and new editors don't always read the talk page FAQ. Another related issue is that I would have to request an admin to place an editnotice on one of those articles. Where would one make such a request, at ANI or here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• [ec: Good morning Sandy!] I wouldn't object on principle to (such) an edit notice, but the mention of "administrators" in there is superfluous and possibly rhetorically loaded ("chilling effect"). I don't think we need more guidelines; I think the regular editing process can take care of it--though in this case very belatedly. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies! Ok, to specifics, would the wording at WP:OWN#Featured articles be appropriate for an editnotice an FAs? If that is the case, then perhaps the appropriate forum for non-admin requests might be at WT:FAC. Or should we run a bot to do all of them? Or do we individually approach an admin we know? Or do we subst a template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the edit notice. It could be phrased differently, but it was neutrally written and correct on policy. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea of an editnotice conveying this kind of message; in my opinion, the only problem with this editnotice is the comma splice and other grammar problems. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added an editnotice to U.S. Route 131 (template-editors can add them, not just admins, btw), only because a section of the highway was rerouted. Once MDOT updates their maps online, I can revise the article to account for the change in mileage, etc. Until that update, I don't want every IP out there "being nice" and making a mess of those figures because "they're wrong!" or something. I offer that as just another example of where they can be useful, especially on FAs where stability and consistency is important. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• As a bit of a tangent, it's worth noting that +ACC (in addition to template editors) can and do create editnotices, which may effect wording somewhat. Kevin Gorman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman, I don't know what you mean by +ACC. Could someone give me the dummies 101 version of what Kevin is saying? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • He means users with the "accountcreator" right. This is a side-effect of how create-protection of editnotices are implemented: through the title blacklist. Accountcreators are not subject to the blacklist (since it also prevents user account creation, and would hinder them in their tasks) and so can create editnotices. I don't know if that's a legit thing or just a known side-effect though. As far as the procedure, I know that people have asked me to add editnotices to pages in the past (mostly Bishonen, for some reason, who can do it herself), and I've complied with the requests when they seem reasonable. Not a big deal, really. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are the same as Drmies's: only the bit about administrators seems off. This sort of notice might be useful, really, in helping good-faith editors add cited material to FAs. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• I added something not unlike this to Elk (also an FA) in order to prevent the same discussion from repeating itself umpteen billion times. It is worth noting that while only certain users can create these, once they are created anyone can edit them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're wrong there, Beeblebrox. I just tried to edit Template:Editnotices/Page/Elk, and MediaWiki wouldn't let me. --Floquensock (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the page notice for Elk.
This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, accountcreators, and template editors.
To request a change to the page, add {{edit protected}} to the talk page, followed by a description of your request. I'm surprised, because I too thought that anyone could edit editnotices after they're created. My only userrights are IP block exempt (since my main account is an admin) and autoconfirmed. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing an editnotice requires the same blacklist override that creating one does, since the "noedit" flag has been set for editnotices in its blacklist entry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well that's my bad I guess. I could have sworn that some of the edit notices had made had been modified by users without any superpowers. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I see clear consensus that other than the wording about Admins, the notice is appropriate, needed, and accurate per policy. I think they should be added to all FA's as standard. Perhaps someone is willing to be bold and suggest this be mentioned in a guideline as standard procedure? Regardless if it is spelled out, it should become our standard, I do not have the statistics on how many FAs have lost their status, but I would wager it is because of continual inane editing. I once saw the numbers someone got together on how many GAs have lost their status and it was quite a lot more than I was aware of; Im curious how many FAs have if we looked into it.Camelbinky (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers can be found at WP:FAS, the talk page of that page, and at WP:FFA. Your wager is wrong; most FAs fall into disrepair when the people watching them leave Wikipedia, or are defeatured because they were never at standard to begin with. Additionally, our numbers are way out of whack now because WP:FAR has gone moribund and articles that should be defeatured are not being nominated; my personal estimate is that at least 20 to 30% of our current FAs are not at standard. Adding this editnotice will not likely change the percentages of FAs that fall from standard, but it can make editing easier for those who watch them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing:

1. Can someone knowledgeable in this realm update the page Wikipedia:Editnotice ?
2. Adding editnotices akin to WP:OWN#Featured articles on all FAs seems to have consensus?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No. This is not the appropriate place to make those two decisions based on limited consensus on a board aimed mostly at admins and those, like me, who keep an eye on admins because of the many rogues. A discussion to make those changes must take place either at the VPP for your second proposal, and for the first proposal the place would be the talk page of Wikipedia:Editnotice. Once consensus takes place there then it can be instituted. However, I doubt the second proposal should be written down or mandated. It should be allowed, but not mandated and I don't see consensus on it being mandated even in this limited discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin needed to evaluate and close RfC on use of royal titles at talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families (which deserves a trout for the length of the name alone) I just undid an RfC closing because of serious questions about the result. See my comments here. I would like to ask that an unbiased administrator with experience closing controversial RfCs evaluate the consensus reached and close the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Would I be good enough?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

More than good enough. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Good, will start looking at it in an hour when I get home.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator motion proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools

An arbitrator motion has been proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools. If you wish to comment, please join the discussion at the motion on the motions page. Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Adminstats

Labs now has deleted edits. Adminstats is displaying deleted edits again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Does statistics of recent admin actions (say 3 months or 6 months) exist somewhere?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No. But I can make one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be very interesting to see, actually. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Would be great indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes please provide those. Thanks, jni (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 Doing...—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 12:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Username policy

I have two questions:

1. WP:CORPNAME states, "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt)" are "not permitted because they are considered promotional". It also states, "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked."

   Assume you have a promotional username that does not promote in articles, what is the remedy if the user refuses to change the name? What's the point of saying "not permitted" if it has no teeth?

2. WP:UAA's instructions states, "This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked." It also states, "Please discuss less-serious violations with the user so that they can rename or abandon their account in good faith."

   Similar question: if you discuss the username with the user and they refuse to change it, where are you supposed to report it?

--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Second question first: WP:RFC/N is usually the next step I that scenario. As to the first question, I am an on-again off again patrolling admin at UAA and it has been my observation that when it comes to spammer names, what gets blocked and what does not depends on who is dealing with reports at any given moment. The policy is sufficiently vague that "admin discretion" makes its enforcement highy variable. It also seems to me that some of the regulars there have come up with exemptions based on their own opinions of how specific situations should be handled, such as the "only edits are to AFC" exemption that was never approved by the community, it just sort of became a standard exception because one or two patrolling admins thought it should be one. I think the username policy is something that needs a periodic community review and overhaul, and it may be about time to do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That was very helpful, Beeblebrox, thanks. As to the second question, wouldn't it be a good idea to add something to the instructions at WP:UAA about WP:RFC/N? I'm sure it's buried someplace, but I didn't know about it. I don't patrol this area at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I thought it was mentioned somewhere in the header but it was not. I've added it to both the page header and the edit notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• A point that should be emphasized here is that editors with promotional usernames usually have good intentions -- they have a COI but they are being transparent about it. We don't want to be in the position of harshly attacking people for being honest about their conflicts -- so the basic goal is to handle the problem in as nice a way as possible. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I used to be very tough on spam usernames until it became clear to me that the vast majority of them simply don't understand that we don't allow that sort of thing around here. That is why I favor "soft" blocking of all but the most obnoxious spammers. The block tells them they absolutely can't use a name that represents an organization, but the ability to immediately just start a new account without having to file an unblock request let's them know we are willing to give the another chance. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As the UAA admin whose interpretation of policy has sparked this discussion (and not for the first time), I will just add my observation that we don't warn people about this when they create accounts. While I sort of don't think we should (the assumption we have is that legitimate editors, ones who are likely to become part of the community, usually don't use such usernames, thus allowing us to filter things somewhat), this then requires (to me) that usernames that are similar to companies or organizations not be blocked for that unless and until they start to promote those entities. The exception is names that indicate clear promotional intent (often combined with the suggestion of a role account), in the vein of "Consolidated Amalgamated Widget Co. Marketing Dept.", which I block on sight. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is probably appropriate to revisit this issue via an RFC. These username blocks jam up our unblock processes and our rename processes, and seem counterproductive. If the owner of an art gallery is editing Wikipedia, I'd like to know that when reviewing the account's edits to articles about art galleries. Ditto for pencil manufacturers, tire regroovers, and ukulele painters. On top of that, following our policy encourages dishonesty, which seems a perverse result.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the history of the policy, but I would think that one concern would have been that the simple creation of a username does not guarantee that the person making the username is actually connected to the organization, or, of they are connected, is authorized by the organization to represent them. So, while I think there is sense in your suggestion that it's better to know who's making the edit, rather then hiding it behind a "false" name, I think that OTRS has to get involved in some way as well. What I would suggest is that organizational username be allowed, but when they're reported and become known, they be softblocked until the account can be established as being official through OTRS. When that happens, they can be unblocked, but be warned about WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:PROMO. If they then start making inappropriate edits, they can be hardblocked on the basis of violations of those policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"I'm not sure of the history of the policy, but I would think that one concern would have been that the simple creation of a username does not guarantee that the person making the username is actually connected to the organization, or, of they are connected, is authorized by the organization to represent them." My guess was that whoever wrote that wasn't thinking that potentially corporate-sounding usernames might be used by people with neither connections to those organizations nor the desire to promote them. Or even real ones (cf. User:Bronx Discount Liquor, who specifically made sure no real organization used the name as far as he could tell). Some people just like having fun. And why should they be discouraged from editing Wikipedia productively because they made ironic or playful use of a corporate name? Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

One reason for not allowing "User:XYZcorp" is that accounts are supposed to be for single individuals only. That's why "Mark at XYZCorp" is allowed, but "XYZCorp PR Assistant" is not. I don't know the reason for that principle, but it seems to me a good one - it avoids "it wasn't me did that edit" excuses, makes it easier to conduct a dialogue, and improves the chances of the individual feeling some loyalty to WP as well as to his employer.

I believe German WP do allow company usernames, and I would be interested to know their experience. It seems to me that if "User:XYZCorp" were permitted, the account could not be allowed to edit their own article directly, unless we soften the COI policy greatly. Many of the "User:XYZCorp" accounts we get plunge straight in with blatant ads in the first person: "We offer luxury services blended with use of the best materials... Our years of experience and experty in this domain will help you..." etc.

Of course, they can't be blamed. What would greatly ease this situation would be if new users were presented before sign-up with a brief statement of what WP is and is not: "Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. It is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself or your company. Edits like that will be deleted. If that is what you have in mind, this is not the site for you - see WP:AUTO and WP:PSCOI." That would save enormous amounts of frustration and waste motion; but I fear it would never be allowed. JohnCD (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My guess was that whoever wrote that wasn't thinking that potentially corporate-sounding usernames might be used by people with neither connections to those organizations nor the desire to promote them. Or even real ones. Your guess would be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'll just add some observations that might be useful for this discussion. My estimate of the percentage of promotional user names that make it to UAA is about 1% at best. The typical promotional account is is created for advertising on their user page. They almost never create article or attempt to edit in article space. Rather, they create their account, place spam on it, and leave. These accounts are typically marked for speedy deletion, their spam user pages deleted, and account blocked. I have tagged well over 1000 such accounts. I send about 1% to UAA and I do so when the promotional nature of the account is clear but not as blatant as most. My observations over the last 8 months that I have been watching new user accounts is that the vast majority are simply created to put spam on their user page and then the account is abandoned, so I think that should be kept in mind when considering any changes to policy.I am One of Many (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I posted about this on the Username policy talk page. —rybec 01:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Like Daniel, I usually block role accounts. For spam, if that was what they were doing (the few that appeal usually deny that "We hope to hear from you so that we can give you our great services. Please contact us on...." is promotional. I've known a few accounts that have accepted that they were doing it wrong and have asked for help. Occasionally, the company has proved to be notable enough, but the now-name-changed author has stuck to the one article. I can think of one who had a name change and has become a fairly regular editor on general matters. There will be a few more, undoubtedly, but not many, in my opinion. I think that some of these role accounts could be created by outside PR people rather than by the companies. This is based on the use of PR speak. No-one normally writes that sort of junk. (One article I deleted was so bad that I couldn't even work out what the company did.) But, as I am One of Many says, these user page (and even talk page) 'profiles' are simply abandoned. Some of them do think that, as on Facebook, they are 'entitled' to a profile. BTW I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the Indian spam posters don't on the whole use company names. They use personal names (probably not their own...) which are lightly abandoned. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• In answer to the initial question: if the person is not editing problematically, and refuses to change the username, then you don't block the account. In particular, if you were one of the people gently encouraging a name change, then you should consider yourself WP:INVOLVED and leave it to someone else. You can discuss it at WP:RFC/N if you need help with a username that you believe is particularly egregious, but there are a number of perfectly legitimate reasons to keep a name that seems promotional to you, including the fact that many such names are permitted at Commons and other Wikipedias, and due to SUL, the English Wikipedia is not actually in a position to dictate usernames to the whole world.
  In the category of "fair warning": I was involved in the 2011 discussions that (finally) resulted in the addition of a sentence that explicitly permitted names like "Mark at WidgetsUSA". This helped some COI disputes (because doing this was being recommended by some COI regulars) and provided more consistent enforcement practice. Various examples like these and these have been contested, for reasons that I think are weak (e.g., unsupported assertions that the policy is perfectly clear, despite continuing evidence of confusion, or a belief that all changes to a policy page require someone to play Mother, May I? first). Based on how long it took to get even small clarifications like these into that policy, at a time when most people believed that such clarifications were needed, I don't realistically believe that an effort to revamp the whole policy is likely to be worth anyone's time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Wishing all a Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it. :-)—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Thanksgiving} 14:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, happy Thanksgiving to you, too, and everyone else here. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A bit late, eh? WilyD 15:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Just to be clear, my "this side of ... both ponds" comment above referred to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, not the Arctic :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh noes no Happy Thanksgiving for me then. And me with only three days of sunshine left. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• ...and a happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends! GiantSnowman 16:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• And Happy Hawaiian Independence day or Lā Kū'oko'a!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• And, for those who belong the world’s largest and most prominent non-religion that has a deity who is truly edible and Full of Complex Carbohydrates, Merry ChriFSMas and happy Holidays.[14][15] :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• My first thanksgiving, at this end :). Seems fun so far, although a Safeway mix-up means I have a 17lb turkey for four people. This'll be interesting. Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)!
• Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Typical systemic bias! HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hope everyone enjoyed their thanksgiving! Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 17:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• /Late/ Happy Thanksgiving! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding motion granting temporary local CheckUser permission to Arbitration Committee Election Scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2013 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Mathonius, User:Vituzzu, User:Matanya, and User:Tegel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Discuss here

Sheldrake

I have been looking at the talk page of the Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. It's pretty clear to me that there is an issue with WP:TRUTH, or more likely The Truth™. One of the sources of heat more than light right now is Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has history (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence).

It is pretty clear that Iantresman is a believer in concepts that are considered fringe or nonsense by the scientific community. My view, having read the talk page, is that he is advocating for the fringe beliefs of the subject rather than discussing how the article can accurately and neutrally reflect those fringe beliefs in the context of their acknowledged rejection by the scientific community.

On his talk page he says he is an active topic ban form at least one fringe subject; I haven't verified this but it is likely given that his primary purpose in fringe subjects is to advocate them rather than document them neutrally, as per ArbCom.

It is seven years since the pseudoscience arbitration, which placed him on probation for a year. I suspect that if the current dispute runs much longer he will end up sanctioned or banned, because he is displaying, to my reading, increasingly aggressive (or passionate or whatever you want to call it) advocacy of a fringe POV. I think this needs to be damped down because it is impeding progress on an article that already suffers from the input of single-purpose and advocacy accounts, and exhortations off-wiki to promote a certain POV. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's so clear, that you you haven't provided one single diff showing where there is a problem with my contributions, or to support your claims. If you are correct, you'll (a) have no problem finding diffs (b) there will be no disagreement from other editors. It is difficult to reply to such vague "criticism", but here goes:

1. I have not edited the article since 3 Jan 2012.[16] Not one of my edits to the aritcle has been removed, ie. I have a 100% record of successful, positive contribitions. I have told you this before.[17]
2. My edits have included adding material that SUPPORTS the description of Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience.[18]
3. I have stated that we should include criticisms on Sheldrake's work.[19]
4. I have stated that there are scientists that reject Sheldrake's work.[20][21]
5. "I have never claimed, suggested, or even hinted that I think, or anybody else thinks, that Sheldrake's work is correct"[22]
6. I have stated that "No one is suggestion we describe Sheldrake;s work "as fact or the majority viewpoint"[23]
7. I have stated many times, that we should be adherring to the relevant policies.[24][25]
8. I have stated that "I don't know whether Sheldrake's idea are valid or bunkum,"[26]
9. I have stated that "No editor is suggesting that we exclude the description by some scientists that they personal believe is work to be pseudoscience"[27] [..] that "I am well aware of some primary sources calling some of this work pseudoscience, and am happy to include them,"[28] [..] "I've happily provided and acknowledged sources that specifically say that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience"[29]

Every single one of these contradicts your assertions. For reference, other editors may wish to read "Persistent_Bullying_of_Rupert_Sheldrake_Editors"([30]) --Iantresman (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I referred to your comments on the Talk page. That is where the problem exists. The absence of self-criticism in your response is noted, I think this is part of the problem. Your comments on the talk page are indicative of an entrenched set of views, and a stubborn refusal to compromise, which is why you have been restricted elsewhere. The question is ton whether this is happening, but whether it is yet serious enough to merit a topic ban, especially given the problems with the article in question. In other words: you are not helping, but are you hindering enough for ti to be actionable. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My current topic ban has nothing to do with "a stubborn refusal to compromise", as is clear from the comments from one of the editors contributing to the case,[31] and my comments in the original article made before the case was started.[32] (another contradiction of your views about me). Please provide diffs, that is not an unreasonable request. --Iantresman (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, all of your problems relate to your disruptive and tendentious editing. I think your conduct on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake is concerning, and I would support a topic ban from all science, fringe science, and pseudoscience articles. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read through WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and I can find none of the signs of tendentious editing you allege. I haven't edited the Sheldrake article since Jan 2012, and ALL the edits I have made are still in the article. ie. I have a 100% editing record. I am not pushing against consensus, as there are several other editors expressing the same concerns. If you have specific concerns, you should be providing examples with diffs. --Iantresman (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, have you ever considered the possibility that other people's judgment of your behaviour might be more objective than your own? Just a thought. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course they are, and as you will already see from some of the comments below, some editors disagree with you. But it is not objective to pretend to claim to know what I believe, and that this is grounds for a ban, it reminds me of McCarthyism. But you are side-stepping the issue. I have sourced several diffs apparently contradicting your claims, you should be able to provide several that support yours. --Iantresman (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy, Consider the case of Martinphi. He was ultimately banned for life. I knew him pretty well as an editor and a little off-line. If there is one person here who advocates fair and balanced treatment of frontier subjects because of personal knowledge of them and their possible veracity, it is me. I considered Martinphi an ally because he also sought fair and balanced treatment of these subjects. As far as I can tell, he thought I was crazy. All he wanted was good, balanced articles.

The point is that the issue here is about fair and balanced, and people who clearly assume anyone who thinks these subjects deserve at least a neutral explanation are pure crackpots, have managed to rule the articles by eliminating editors with contrary views. that is the bottom line.

It looks like you and PhilKnight are preparing to eliminate another moderate editor. At the very best, this is a nuisance charge.Tom Butler (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about pseudoscience, but I see that it is an extremely touchy subject. I remember some of that from my early experiences with Wikipedia. I don't see that Iantresman is in any way unreasonably advancing a pseudoscience topic as something other than pseudoscience. I don't see that he is being unreasonably insistent about anything, except about trying to achieve, politely but firmly, consensus on specific items in the Sheldrake article (I am somewhat aware of his history with other articles; maybe this is how he was acting there). As for me, I'm only monitoring that article and its talk page these days. Too much bad behavior over there. Maybe bad talk page behavior is the norm where pseudoscience comes up. That's not good for Wikipedia, especially where it boils over into the article. Lou Sander (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You say that, but you say it as someone who apparently believes it's reasonable to cast doubt on the status of conservation of energy as a scientific fact, so that's rather a point for the opposition... Guy (Help!) 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. The Conservation of energy is a law, not a fact. The fact that most of us consider it a fact, does not make it so. You'll recall from your history of science, that "for a while many physicists thought that radioactive emissions violated the conservation of energy"[33]. Of course radioactivity did not violated the law, but physicists DID "believes it's reasonable to cast doubt on the status of conservation of energy as a scientific fact". And that's a fact. --Iantresman (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember Martinphi, and I also remember ScienceApologist. The two had diametrically opposing views and baited each other relentlessly, as far as I remember it. The project would be better if both had learned to compromise a little. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman has been digging up articles on Sheldrake and discussing their contents on the talk page. Many of these articles quote scientists on Sheldrake's work. As a result of Iantresman's efforts, we now know that the overwhelming majority of commentators disagree with Sheldrake's views but nonetheless regard him as a genuine scientist. This conflicts with the agenda of a coterie of editors who seek to portray the scientific community as being unified in the belief that Sheldrake's work is pseudoscience. In fact only a tiny number of commentators have made this claim. Iantresman has been targeted because of his effectiveness at exposing the POV-pushing of these editors, none of whom seem to understand that it's possible to disagree with a viewpoint but still regard it as scientific. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really. If you read the sources, it's quite clear that they don't think he's a scientist because his ideas are unscientific. Iantresman (talk · contribs) is very good at creatively interpreting sources and arguing that they say things they don't. This is a WP:FRINGE subject, let's not pretend otherwise, and several editors, many SPAs simply don't have a good enough grasp of reality to understand what is going on here. There is certainly self-selection going on. Those who think Sheldrake's ideas are worthwhile almost certainly don't understand them or their context sufficiently. We might be able to work out a text that is better if the pro-Sheldrake editors left it alone for people with a fuller understanding to edit it, thereby getting the subtle nuances right. Currently the pro-Sheldrake editors are inanely whacking it with a big stick, hoping to mould it, when what is needed is a little subtle tweeking. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, as evidenced by the reliable secondary sources I have already provided, that specifically and unequivocally described Sheldrake as either a scientist or scientific.[34] No dispute that they may have criticisms, and even reject his hypotheses, or that this is a "fringe" subject, all of which should be included, but that is not what you said. No dispute that there are some who call him or his work pseudoscience, and I have included such quotes in the article.[35] If you disagree, simply provide some reliable secondary sources with quotes that can be checked. "Sheldrake is scientific",[36] "Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist",[37] "Rupert Sheldrake, a biochemist"[38] etc etc --Iantresman (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we also have "reliable sources" that describe him as a "professor" or as a "chemist", when he is neither. Cherry picking the "reliable sources" that suit your viewpoint, while ignoring the single self-identifying word label used by a handful of science journalists with a word limit and is entirely superficial and in this case wrong because it doesn't sit with the evident facts, nor is it compatible with WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't need to use magic one word catch-all descriptors - we rather pedantically, can prefer short accurate explanations, which is what we have. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I covered as many sources as I could find, including those that labelled him a pseudoscientist. I did not cherry pick or exclude any sources, and certainly did not include only science journalists as you suggest. Again, you have provided no sources to allow checking of your facts. --Iantresman (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request that an Admin asks Guy to restate his original post below, with diffs that support his statements, or to strike them through, per WP:INDCRIT "Avoid indirect criticism", and WP:WIAPA "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links".--Iantresman (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Iantresman's filling the talk page with tendentious and purely disruptive editing on the talk page, I would refer people to the content here: [39]. Within the edits Iantresman presents Rose as stating *"Granted its scientific" - Prof. Steven Rose.[40] as if Rose is supporting the scientific nature of Sheldrakes morphic resonance, when the actual sentence from the source is "Granted its scientific and philosophical implausibility it is worth asking why the Sheldrake hypothesis has continued to receive any publicity." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Iantresman has now clarified on my talk page and the Sheldrake talk page that the misquote was an accidental misreading and not an intentional attempt to mislead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoring a course

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 don't know how Wikipedia:Course pages work. In order to answer a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#My courses, I enrolled to a course as a test and immediately tried to remove my enrollment with a link saying remove, but that apparently deleted the course. See Special:Log/PrimeHunter. Can someone restore it? When I click the "restore 4 revisions" link at Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013) nothing happens. When I select Georgia Institute of Technology in the Institution field and click "Add course", I get "Failed to undelete course Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013). It has no revisions to undelete." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Another effect of the wacky new education interface; I suspect that Sage Ross (WMF) is the one who can sort this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

He's on it: [41] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Posting a link here just to make sure no one tries to help and inadvertently makes things worse. Could someone close and archive this section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Deleted draft page in user space

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

---

A while ago I created User:Blueboar/drafts - Li (surname)... a draft page in my user space with my own ideas on how to re-structure the Li (surname) article. Today, I wanted to link to that draft in a discussion, and discovered that my draft is now red-linked... it has apparently been deleted. Could someone find out what happened to it and, if possible, resurrect it? It is my understanding that draft pages in user space are not deleted without the OK of the user who created them. I don't remember requesting that it be deleted ... and I certainly never received any notification that it was going to be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that it at User talk:Blueboar/drafts - Li (surname)? North8000 (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That must be it. The only deleted page in Blueboar's userspace is User talk:Blueboar/Archive, deleted on Blueboar's request in 2007. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

D'oh... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge request: Talk:Perfect space and Talk:Perfect set?

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 article Perfect space was recently moved to Perfect set. However, its talk page was not moved with it. Furthermore, there is an already created page at Talk:Perfect set. It seems clear that Talk:Perfect space should actually reside at Talk:Perfect set but this needs an admin to carry it out. I'm also not sure if the existing talk page comment needs to be retained somewhere. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the talk page, overwriting the old talk page whose only post is no longer relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal: Sankararamank

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.

No consensus to ban. I'd like to see more than 2 users voting to support and a little discussion before I impose a community ban. And just noting that their edits can already be reverted on sight and pages/files they create/upload can be deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Sankararamank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely back in November for disruptive editing and competence issues. Since then, he has created at least five confirmed sockpuppets to continue the same disruption, the most recent one being Amsaveni Suganya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This disruption has gone on long enough and we are not going to accept anymore of his contributions. Therefore, I propose that he should be banned indefinitely for disruptive editing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Question: As one of those who has noticed his sockpuppetry and reported several of them, I do not see how a ban would make any difference, because his puppets get blocked within a few hours of appearing. WHat practical effect do you expect the ban to have? Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• If he does get banned, his edits should be reverted and when he does return as a Sockpuppet, he should be blocked immediately. My goal in this proposal is to have the community step up and say "you're done here". His disruption has been basically been going on for long enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm another who has been following his case. His socks sometimes operate for a while undetected, leaving lots of things to check manually for cleanup (including a still-pending AfD and NFC/DI-tagged image). There's no evidence the editor meets WP:CIR: unwillingness to communicate/collaborate, inability to follow policies/guidelines for articles or process, knows that he is creating multiple accounts (and that it is not suitable behavior), etc. The ability to "just revert/delete all on sight" would save us lots of time, and cost us little to nothing in the way of valid encyclopediac content. He seemed to know his way around quite well for a new editor, so there may be a longer-term problem (or older sock drawer) here. DMacks (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaravathiarun is connected? Same target articles (Muni 3 and associated), socking habit, etc.. DMacks (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation, DMacks. I have filed a formal request for gifted people to check this out and consider merging the cases. Sjones23 I support your proposal for the community to step forward, though am still struggling a little to see why it serves us better than just shooting them down on sight anyway. Fiddle Faddle 23:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as proposer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. Fiddle Faddle 23:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin eyes are requested on Jimbo's talk page

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

---

on this thread, [42]. --Mark Miller (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A better idea would be to move that thread to an appropriate page...and why are admin eyes more important to this current editorial dispute? --Onorem (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is already a discussion at Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality which may perhaps be more productive. I see no particular reason why admin eyes as opposed to experienced editors are needed. No admin actions seem to have been called for. DES ^(talk) 01:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Nyttend's unblock

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 performed the IP's block, on the grounds that the IP was an activist homophobe, but Nyttend subsequently unblocked.

Nyttend unblocked the IP with the unblock request explanation "Accepted, since you weren't engaged in activism, and our policies prohibit blocking people just because they believe something different from the party line "

The two edits which justified the block were:

1. [43] "But this isn't a map showing tolerance for different races and ethnicities, its a map purporting to show views on sexual immorality / morality. Therefore, logically, a map of countries' attitudes toward bestaility, incest, pedophilia would be a much closer analogy. "
2. [44] "Really? Because you are attacking my government? Homosexuals have always judged the entire world through their sore tortured prisms, that's nothing new but they need to get their own wiki or their own pedia, this isn't the homopedia, this is everybody's wikipedia like it or not! "

The IP's mere anti-homosexual position did not justify that block (or any block), nor did their opposition to the map which they started the discussion over (I agree it's evidently OR, and suspicious on those grounds). Those two comments were unacceptable.

The criteria I used for blocking was comparing these edits to what the reaction would have been for similar comments made against (for example) religious groups such as Jews, Moslems, or ethnic groups such as Blacks or Asians. Had someone compared any of those groups to "bestiality, incest, or pedophila", or "judged the entire world through their sore tortured prisms", the account would be blocked without any doubt.

Nyttend, please reverse your unblock. The block was entirely proper in the first place. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, a lot of incidents today (including this one) really stimulated my creative juices. I'll start assembling my thoughts at User:Dank/Human dignity is not up for discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

[45]. The admin who unblocked does not have clean hands: "Came here from Mark Miller's WP:AN posting. Atlan's comment is a textbook example of how we are nowhere near being neutral on the issue of homosexuality. In favor of pretending that homosexuality is normal/okay/etc.: you're normal and can participate here. Opposed: you're hateful and don't deserve to participate here. Let me remind such commentators that aggressive advancement of such a position is harassment. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)" This comment was due to this:"https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=583464088&oldid=583463835".

Admin Georgewilliamherbert blocked the IP [46] "Blocked 1 month for homophobic activism on several pages". An unblock request was declined:[47] by admin Yunshui. Then Nyttend unblocked, [48] from the falling request: "I was blocked for a fraudulent, spiteful reason without any warning, by a spiteful admin whose politics disagee with what I asked Jimbo. I realize that my IP has auto changed since then but I am officially barred from rejoining the conversation and this is done to ensure that only about 10 percent of editors who see things a certain way are allowed to participate, producing the illusion of a "consensus" that excludes 90 percent of earth's human population. And this being 2013, what "neutral" wikipedia does like this gets blown all over the globe the next day." when in fact, the consensus of editors was that the image violated Wikipedia guidelines and policies on OR and synthesis. I feel this is a wheel war where an admin is clearly not seeing the disruption or recognizing the issue and even allowed an accusatory unblock request to be the reason for their unblock. I request that this be reviewed to see if this was an appropriate unblock. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The administrator Nyttend obviously feels that homosexual people don't have the same rights as other people. This is obvious by his comment on Jimbo's Talk page, his unblock of the IP and his reason given. It's very disturbing that someone who so obviously has an extreme bias against a certain group of people has admin rights. Would we let antisemitic editors become admins and unblock neo-nazis? Disturbing indeed. Dave Dial (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The first of the two edits is asserting that it is a bad behavior and should be treated as such. The second is a claim that such persons have a view centric on their position and a complaint that they feel that view should dominate Wikipedia. This reflects viewpoints (not my own) that many persons, religions and governments hold. Even though I disagree with those sentiments, I don't see how that it was blockable offense. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? There are editors who believe that unblocking an openly homophobic IP is OK? So comparing homosexuality with "bestaility, incest, pedophilia" is acceptable by your standard? Gaba ^(talk) 03:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm more concerned about the unblock and about Nyttend's statement above that Wikipedians are "in favor of pretending that homosexuality is normal/okay/etc." I'm assuming that Nyttend doesn't know that public opinion in Western democracies is now more or less decided at least on that issue, if not 100% on peripheral issues such as specific rights. That is, there seems to be a strong consensus now (and a stronger consensus among everyone under 40, making the eventual outcome of the issue inevitable) that it's not okay to advocate that homosexuality is abnormal and not okay, in view of the horrible things that have been done in the past using that justification. But OTOH, I think it's really important not to attack Nyttend for the statement; I've started on a relevant essay at User:Dank/Human dignity is not up for discussion. I think what we need to do is figure out where the lines are, which personal attacks merit what responses, but at the same time, we should keep a sense of humility, and only draw the lines where they absolutely have to be drawn to keep discussions from blowing up and getting personalized. The concept of "dignity" is constantly evolving; I may object to something Nyttend says today, and then tomorrow I may find out that some of my own speech and my own attitudes have been found to cross some line. That is, I don't see a contradiction between saying "Wikipedians (including admins) shouldn't say that" and acknowledging that in some cultures and on some websites, it's perfectly acceptable to say that, and things I'm saying today might not be acceptable in another time or place. That doesn't prohibit us from drawing lines that need to be drawn to avoid harm being done to the fabric of this community; for instance, I think a firm rule could have avoided a lot of damage I believe was done during the recent Arbcom case on transgender issues. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. The first post was insulting and obvios trolling for effect. ;https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=583449040&oldid=583437494] The thread was originally titled: "Wikipedia's flamingly obvious biases and prejudices" and in the first sentence continued the trolling with: "I noticed this image and it is the most flagrantly and flamboyantly biased, point of view.."

But that was not all:"But this isn't a map showing tolerance for different races and ethnicities, its a map purporting to show views on sexual immorality / morality. Therefore, logically, a map of countries' attitudes toward bestaility, incest, pedophilia, and then judging them as "better" "improving" and "worst" countries using that as the be-all and end-all sacred cow criteria, would be a much closer analogy. 71.127.137.154 (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "

And continued with:"I do not like the way homosexual behaviour is now being actively and vehemently promoted in every country and in my country by a few foreign individuals. I deeply resent anyone suggesting that wikipedia is obliged support this sickness and adopt the same bias in the name of "tolerance" and directly label my country in opposition to my country's government. This will become a political issue with wikipedia and will then have to be pursued that way. So, yes, you could say I have bad faith with this poster. 71.127.137.154 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)"

And more:"Really? Because you are attacking my government? Homosexuals have always judged the entire world through their sore tortured prisms, that's nothing new but they need to get their own wiki or their own pedia, this isn't the homopedia, this is everybody's wikipedia like it or not! 71.127.137.154 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "

No, I am sorry North but you are just incorrect.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What I stated about logic is touching on the logic on the analogy that had been offered to maps of race and ethnicities. Unfortunately you are looking at it emotionally and not logically or you would see that clearly negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality tend to lump it in with the other behaviours as unacceptable, so it is a better analogy. 71.246.145.185 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at it through a professional approach that you trolled Jimbo's talk page and deserve the one month block you received and as I am sure you know, I agreed that the map was OR and even the author has agreed to delete it. This isn't about your complaint it is what you said and how you presented it in a VERY inappropriate manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion, I believe that homosexuality is an embedded attribute, and I advocate the societal normalization of it. But I also acknowledge that there are others who feel that it is a chosen, improper behavior and I also have tolerance for that. And my comment was that the posts in the two provided diffs did not appear to be blockable offenses. North8000 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Avoid confusion or add to it? This isn't about your view on Homosexuality North.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear. This is about an editor that made a homophobic rant and was blocked for one month for using Wikipedia to propagate his "homophobic activism on several pages" and the subsequent wheel war that occurred after wards with an inappropriate unblock that made accusations against the originating admin. That is unacceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Another reason I think we need a firm guideline on so-called "hate speech" is that that would do much less harm, I think, than is done by all the arguing back-and-forth about what's okay to say (and what's "normal" or not) every time some vandal strikes a nerve. There are still a lot of people in more conservative cultures who feel that their culture is being attacked when the issue comes up, just as there are still plenty of (in this case) gay people who feel attacked when people argue that there's no particular harm in representing them as they're being represented above. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is going to be hard to do, we would need a non bias type of group (A kind of jury if you want to compare) to put this together. Some of the existing policies that we have to be wary of are: WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. I do however agree there needs to be a guideline in place, Dank do you have any suggestios on how to begin this process? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment As a person commenting in the discussion when said block took place, I too did not see the IP as a homophobe. In the IP's defense there were comments being thrown towards the user such as: "Sorry, can't hear you, the right-wing doesn't play very well where science and rational thinking are needed" So, no this was not a one sided argument. I cant speak for the IP but what I feel is that the IP user got offended by what they saw on the map, brought it up as a legit issue and comments took a hold from there. Not everyone has the same view on things and some of the comments made did not help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I saw the discussion on Jimbo's talk page and was about to block the IP when I saw that George had already done so. The rationale for my block would have been that the IP was engaged in disruption, per his persistent soapboxing. Regardless of how offensive we may or may not find his opinions, it's just disruptive for someone to be spouting off like that. We have people from a lot of different cultures here, so we shouldn't be blocking people based on their personal beliefs, but we should when they promote them to the point of disrupting the encyclopedia. So I disagree with Nyttend's unblock rationale--I don't think the IP was blocked for having views that are different than the party line, his behavior was the issue. In this case, the IP seems to be on a dynamic connection, so while I disagree with the unblock, restoring the block would serve no purpose here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• If the IP had had a history prior to the talk on Jimbo's page then I retract my comment above, I just try to assume good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, he didn't, but last night I felt that by the time he got to the "this isn't the homopedia" comment he had been sufficiently warned by the other participants that his rhetoric wasn't acceptable. Looking at it again tonight though, I think it would have been better if he had been given a final warning instead of a block at that point. I think Sportsfan probably should have been warned for one of his comments there, but again, I think a warning would have been enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong I found that comment un-acceptable as well, but the map was in the wrong and the IP started out the convo in a non disruptive way. That leads me to believe it could have been a case of hotheadness and as you mentioned there was a lack of final warning. Could something have been done different? I believe so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash. He started it with a hateful and contemptuous header title. While he was spouting hate, others were attempting to address the actual concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There is something wrong here. I kept to neutral prose, and attempted to understand what the issue was past that hateful diatribe and I get rewarded with this crap. I have a real problem with this.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this needs formal arbitration.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend's actions are very troubling. From the moment he stated "Atlan's comment is a textbook example of how we are nowhere near being neutral on the issue of homosexuality.", he exposed his personal bias and lack of objectivity. I'm not even sure what it means to be "neutral on the issue of homosexuality". Is that like being neutral on the issue of being Jewish? Unblocking the trolling IP is disruptive and probably a violation of WP:ADMINACCT. The block should be promptly reinstated. - MrX 05:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bad unblock. The IP user found a legitimate issue. The image is a work of synthetic original research and is far from NPOV. It shouldn't be in the article. It seems to have been uploaded by a well-intentioned new user. The IP's first port of call to object to this is to jump on to Jimbotalk and start screaming about how the proverbial sky is falling, and then follows up by getting into bad-tempered discussion that was always going to produce more heat than light. Instead, perhaps, the user could have had a civil discussion with the user who uploaded the image. There are situations where civility is debatable but this isn't one of them. The point of having a policy on civility is that it is to try and encourage people to take the course that will cause least pain and drama when dealing with other users. The point of WP:AGF is that when someone uploads an image like the one the IP user complained of, we should assume that they are just trying to do something good for the encyclopedia and patiently explain policy to them rather then conclude that some giant homosexual conspiracy is out to steal away the wiki's neutrality.
  There's a procedural issue here too. Another admin already denied the unblock request. Sure, the block is probably too harsh (48 or 72 hours would do the job). But in cases like this, take the block to AN/ANI and get community input as to whether to unblock. (And, yes, I'm fully aware that having a "This user identifies as gay" userbox on my user page means I'm going to be alleged to have a conflict of interest at some point. C'est la vie.) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

To reply to North8000 - The IP editor was not blocked because they are homophobic or opposed to homosexuality. That describes about 25% of the US population, roughly, and recently described 50% (and not that long ago, 75%, and within my lifetime more like 85%). I have no intention of using blocks to attempt to push out or punish minority viewpoints.

Specifically, the block was because of the two statements I listed above with the diffs.

Take any random group - whether it be Jews, Moslems, Blacks, Asians, etc. There are people who legitimately feel that Jews are subhuman and / or an inferior race and / or part of a conspiracy against true White Men. There are people who feel that Moslems are a strange hostile religion, traitors just for their religion, and various desert-related epithets I won't even use for an example. There are people still who feel Blacks are inferior and want them segregated, won't accept them living nearby or taking jobs or marrying into their families. The same with Asians. Those beliefs are sadly widespread, even on Wikipedia. Those people are tolerated.

Take any editor who comments comparing the group to people who practice "pedophillia, bestiality, or incest". That editor will be blocked. This will not be controversial.

The question is not whether those beliefs exist. The question is not whether those beliefs are present in large swaths of the population. The question is not whether those beliefs are present in large numbers (even if it's a small percentage) of Wikipedians. The question is, if you believe any of those things, what level of expression is tolerable in Wikipedia forums, and what is not.

Equating any group with those groups, is unacceptable on Wikipedia. It's hate speech. It's intended to incite and offend and disrupt. It immediately removes any pretense of an attempt to cooperate with a community of diverse opinions and build an inclusive encyclopedia.

We do have behavior standards. This IP flipped those standards - and the community - the bird, rather than being here to build an encyclopedia. They do not belong here.

The IP did point out a map which is original research. There's been general agreement on that point, and we thank them for that service.

That does not excuse the unacceptable comments in any manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just woke up to this. At first I thought Nyttend just had not read the discussion on Jimbo's talk page very well and that he drew the wrong conclusion because of that (he called my call for a block on the IP "harassment" and that it is "what is wrong with Wikipedia right now"). I see now that he really does think the IP did not go over the line, and I find that troubling.--Atlan (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Bad unblock. Let's see how it plays out with a simple word substitution:

I do not like the way Jewish behaviour is now being actively and vehemently promoted in every country and in my country by a few foreign individuals. I deeply resent anyone suggesting that wikipedia is obliged support this sickness and adopt the same bias in the name of "tolerance"... Jews have always judged the entire world through their sore tortured prisms, that's nothing new but they need to get their own wiki or their own pedia, this isn't the Jewpedia, this is everybody's wikipedia like it or not!... It's no wonder you have a "consensus" for such pro-Jew biases and prejudices when you muzzle and banish everyone who does not share them!

Even if you substitute back in "homosexual" for "Jew", you can't say stuff like this. It will get you shunned by decent people, and "banned from the Wikipedia" is a subset of "shunned by decent people" I'd say. There are a couple of mitigating factors: fifty years ago the IP's rant would have been acceptable, and the IP was sorely provoked by some unnecessarily combative and off-subject editors. These are not sufficient mitigation: the past is sometimes nice to visit but we don't live there, and not letting yourself be baited is a person's own responsibility, to some extent. We don't need and don't want stuff like this here, it is not helpful to our mission going forward, so the block was proper on that basis. Herostratus (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend was WP:Involved with his/her soapbox comment about Atlan and "we" (ie., Wikipedia) [49]. Atlan is not "we," nor Wikipedia, and Nyttend's attempt to soapbox about Wikipedians in the IP's favor demonstrates he/she was involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Happy Thanksgiving to everyone on this side of the pond (both ponds, actually). Before this Nyttend discussion spirals in a bad way, I'd like to try a more global approach to the problem we're talking about here ... I'd like to be one of the closers in an RfC that deals with the subject of "sensitivity training". As a closer, I can't take any position pro or con, but since this is a subject I've said very little about in my six years here, I'm letting people know where I stand at User:Dank/Human dignity is not up for discussion, and you can judge for yourselves whether I meet your definition of "neutral". Nyttend, if you're reading this, I'd really appreciate your voice and your perspective; as a committed and competent admin who has a different point of view than most here, you'd be a valuable asset to any discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Yes Happy Thanksgiving everyone =) I find it a bit odd that Nyttend is not defending his actions here, after all this kind of thing if proven true could cost an adminship I would think. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

He has not edited since the conversation began, as far as I see. The description of this as "cost his adminship" is not likely; we expect ordinary errors and disagreements among admins. A grievousx error, or ongoing pattern, is required, neither of which I see here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that today is Thanksgiving for us Yanks, I would say Nyttend's absence is understandable and not an indication of anything disconcerting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion on Jimbo's page in which the comment was made, and in the exchange on the articel talk poage which actually seems to ahve resolved the matter, i did not think that the IP's remarks were worthy of a block, even thoguh i disapproved of them. I might add that I think that the "bestaility, incest, pedophilia" commtn is being taken out of context or misinterpreted, the IP's (IMO invalid) point seemed to be that if the issue is one of sexual morality, it should be compared to other issues seen by many to be sexually immoral, not to racial issues. In any case, I have seen many people expressing racial or ethnic dislike on talk pages, particularly on talk pages of disputes over such issues. I don't recall seeing blocks without warnings over such speech, even so-called 'hate speech". Until it gets to be attacks on specific editors here or far more extreme than this did, I think the proper cure for hate speech is anti-hate speech, not blocking. I would have unblocked myself had I not been so deeply involved in the discussion. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DES, no, those comments were taken directly as they were given and I was involved up to my ears as you were. We take things differently. Cool, perhaps as a gay man you accept such behavior or perhaps you are not a gay man and have absolutely no clue, but I will say this; that IP meant to be insulting and disgusting and trolled Jimbo's talkpage trying to flip people out. We stayed calm, dealt with the problem with no drama and this is the result...the editor gets away scott free and those that worked on that situation were just dumped on, you included, whether you want to admit it or not. Clearly more drama is needed because this is what happens when you handle things calmly.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Unnecessarily combative and tasteless remark, excessive block, acceptable unblock. Wow, I saw this a few hours ago and was pretty certain I would come back and see things had calmed down and people had by and large endorsed Nyttend's unblock. It's an indication how variable our concepts of acceptable discourse are on this cross-cultural 'pedia. In my opinion, IP was provoked and responded unnecessarily combatively, even offensively. An appropriate reaction would have been anything from a stern but polite rejoiner in-thread, to a warning and request to strike on his talk page, to a 24 hours block to avoid further escalation. A 30 day block seems an extreme overreaction. While a bit more dialogue between Nyttend and the blocking admin would not have been amiss, the unblock to me seems quite uncontroversial. By the way, in reading through this thread I have done the thought experiment of replacing "homosexual" with various other groups, historically discriminated against and not, of which I am personally a member -- I would have the same conclusion. Martinp (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, Im happy I am not the only one who sees this angle to it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I, in turn, am deeply disappointed that some members of this community are so willing to immediately accept an unblock request that is so completely unrepentant about the use of hate speech. This wasn't an "oops, I got hot under the collar, sorry, won't happen again" unblock request. It was an "I was blocked by the homosexual conspiracy" unblock request. I quote:

"I was blocked for a fraudulent, spiteful reason without any warning, by a spiteful admin whose politics disagee with what I asked Jimbo. I realize that my IP has auto changed since then but I am officially barred from rejoining the conversation and this is done to ensure that only about 10 percent of editors who see things a certain way are allowed to participate, producing the illusion of a "consensus" that excludes 90 percent of earth's human population...." [50]

That is the request that Nyttend unblocked on. I'm hoping that you two – Martinp and Knowledgekid87 – just didn't investigate this situation very closely before commenting, and not that you realize the type of editor you're dealing with and consciously chose to endorse his unblock anyway. Nyttend, of course, has no excuse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ten, I respectfully disagree. It's regrettable but not terribly surprising that an editor blocked without warning in an over-reaction is rather peevish about it, and while I don't agree with the wording he used in the unblock request any more than I agree with his wording that prompted the sanction in the first place, I do have empathy with him as well. When we sanction someone inappropriately and excessively, the right thing is to remove the sanction, not wait for them to make promises as if they accept the premise of the sanction. Though after unblocking would not hurt to explain to the blockee what he could do differently to avoid a similar reaction next time, and maybe even give an explicit warning. As to the rest, I agree with DES' comment right above my own. While it is possible we are all just being artfully trolled here, I think the "type of editor" (your last sentence) is someone who to a crowd of moderate-to-socially-liberal North American and European 40-and-unders seems hopelessly and anachronistically bigoted (we don't think like that and certainly don't talk like that!), but to an older generation and/or in some other parts of the world is quite typical. We should AGF; if appropriate discuss and attempt to persuade; if necessary to prevent disruption respond with appropriately escalating sanctions -- but not automatically reach for the nuclear option. Martinp (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know who you think is under 40. At any rate, since Nyttend was involved, he/she should have done nothing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no way to assume AGF when being told you rape animals. It was as horrifying and inappropriate as comments go and the admin who unblocked abused their tools. I believe the editors agreeing with the unblock are as insensitive to their community as Nyttend. it's really is disgusting.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I am sorry that is the reaction you had to the statement. However, it is really quite far from what the original statement said -- though I am also empathetic that those who themselves or as an identifiable group have faced discrimination, hate, and violence who might jump to such an interpretation. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that tempers are frayed and my back and forth isn't helping matters here, so peace and good night. Martinp (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark please keep a cool head here, everyone has a right to their opinions it does not mean that they are being insensitive. We are a neutral encyclopedia after all are we not? As for the comments made by the IP while I may disagree with other people's viewpoints from different countries I do not see as per above any evidence that the comments made by the IP were directed towards editors here. Comments made to the IP include: "You're making a fuss out of nothing." and "OMG! The Gays are at it!" Even if it was made as a joke, the IP user made the first post first comment towards Sportfan5000 and none other which is telling that it could have provoked a reaction. The comment afterwards: "Sorry, can't hear you, the right-wing doesn't play very well where science and rational thinking are needed" pretty much had things going downhill from there. I will however say the wording of the header was badly chosen but I feel as i have drawn the line here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be keeping a cool enough head here for everyone...but you do not speak for everyone. Keeping calm makes everyone think everything is fine and it isn't. Not by a long shot! I don't give a shit that people think it is OK to spout off about gay people in this hateful manner. You don't have you defend it like it was spilled milk. This situation is really showing the communities hateful blind eye and I know damn well the minute I cross any line I will be permanently blocked. In fact, I am certain Nyttend and other's have their finger, just waiting to get rid of as many gay editors as possible. it is absolutely clear now. This was purposely done by that admin to discourage gay editors from defending themselves. Again...we ALL deserve a safe place to edit and I do not believe we should tolerate this kind of bullying and harrasment, or for it to be supported by admin with such an obviouse bad unblock. I have been blocked several times without warning. Nobody gave a damn and still don't. And you can bet that homophobic IP will be guarded like fine china now.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So what could have been done different, well while I dont know what the reaction from the IP would have been I could see something like this being done: "But this isn't a map showing tolerance for different races and ethnicities, its a map purporting to show views on sexual immorality / morality. Therefore, logically, a map of countries' attitudes toward bestaility, incest, pedophilia, and then judging them as "better" "improving" and "worst" countries using that as the be-all and end-all sacred cow criteria, would be a much closer analogy." --> Response: Not everyone agrees with this view, I have noticed that your thread here is not titled the best as well can you please keep the talk civil (WP:CIVIL) here. Some of us know here that you are at issue with the map, let us clear this up. Rather than saying "That sounds very much like a homophobic rant and nothing more." This is just one example. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. The IP's comment were way over the line; they were hateful and hyperbolic. I assumed good faith until it was glaringly obvious that the IP was here not to improve the encyclopedia, but to use homosexuality as wedge and to bait the community. Guess what? It worked. Had Nyttend, simply kept out of it as he should have, Wikipedia would have lost exactly nothing. Instead, he took a stand for for someone who has never made a constructive edit here and displayed very poor judgment. Defending this non-editing IP under some fallacious premise of free speech or new editor retention is idiotic, dishonest and insulting to the people who actually contribute to this project. Sadly, it's exactly what I've come to expect from a vocal few who swarm around these issues like shiny green flies. - MrX 04:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

MartinP, I decline to grant your premise that the block was unwarranted, nor that the situation was somehow so urgent that Nyttend had no choice but to unblock immediately without consulting anyone in response to paranoid and homophobic unblock request (and immediately after another admin had already declined one other such request). The editor was obnoxious and bigoted before he was blocked, very deliberately drawing an analogy between homosexuality and bestiality or pedophelia when comparing legal restrictions on sexual activity, after he failed to draw a sufficiently excited response to his use of "flaming" in the thread header he created. Your suggestion that he was simply reacting heatedly to a block puts the effect before the cause; the idea that this is simply an older person who is a bit confused about how the world has changed around him is charming, but demands an implausible credulousness on our part. If someone acts like a homophobic troll, I'm not going to go out of my way to make excuses for why they might be that way, and it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to provide them with a place to spread their particular brand of unpleasantness. I'm saddened that you disagree. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think the unblock is appropriate. The blocked user needs to refrain from such inflammatory language, however. We should encourage people to express their views, but they should do so in a reasonably constructive and diplomatic fashion. Everyking (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't unlikely to happen now. We just basically told the editor he has free reign to destroy what he wants as long as it is related to homosexuals, the second class editors, who may be bullied, harrassed and trolled at your liesure. But of course we should say it was sorta bad, give a slap on the wrist and a wink of the eye at the same time.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My reading of consensus here at this time is that the block was good... Perhaps a bit excessive, but good, and that the unblock was improper. If the IP does it again, I will block again, and if they are unblocked again I will take that admin to Arbcom for enabling bad behavior.

If the IP thinks they got away with it, they're wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting side note to know that people are able to get internet in and edit Wikipedia from a cave. Why do we continue to indulge the most vile of trolls with posts and drama like this when we are under no obligation to? When someone makes it so evident that they lack intelligence and the capacity for critical thought, why do invite them to join an academic pursuit? We need to remain open to every idea and every tradition and every point of view (no matter how disgustingly backward and utterly ignorant it is) but we do not owe the people that propagate such nonsense anything. John Reaves 05:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• So anyone who disagrees with you lives in a cave and has no intelligence? I can see that you have remained open to every idea, tradition, point of view... etc. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 05:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This comment (my comment) was unnecessarily divisive and definitely unhelpful. It's just incredibly hard for me to fathom that this issue is an issue of "opinion" for some people. I can't understand how this is any different than dancing on hot coals around the sensitivities of Holocaust deniers or pediphilia activists. That being said; maybe I shouldn't be commenting here. Rather than saying we should be "open" to every idea, etc. I should have said we should be willing to document, in an encyclopedic fashion, every idea, tradition, etc. John Reaves 05:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, at any rate, this thread has helped make it very clear to me that I'm no longer a Wikipedian. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 05:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
      • That's awfully melodramatic. John Reaves 05:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
        • And your post was underwhelming. I am not a Wikipedian. It is clear. I am just this shit on the bottum of your shoes you can't wipe off.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you should re-read my comments. I'm not sure you understood them. John Reaves 06:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
          • "I can't understand how this is any different than dancing on hot coals around the sensitivities of Holocaust deniers or pediphilia activists" What the fuck is this shit? Really. Goddman it, this shit is fucking pathetic!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Should we now begin to greet Catholic editors as child molestors? How about the Mormon editors as traitors to the US? Perhaps we can make fun of the disabled for all that chrome on their wheelchairs and laugh at people when they die because they couldn't hack it in the world? No....I think we should respect everyone but if this is the NEW WIKIPEDIA I guess everyone most conform to the new editing style.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I think you have misunderstood John Reeves. You appear to have taken his comments opposite to the meaning intended. Look at them, again, in that light. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No, George I understood it, perhaps he was right and "([his] comment) was unnecessarily divisive and definitely unhelpful". It made things far worse, if that is what you mean. I am nether a "Holocaust deniers or pediphilia activists" and if that was supposed to be support...i could do without that shit. But thank you. It isn't a matter of taking his comments opposite of what he meant, he meant what he said and it was that this entire situation was attempting to be sensitive to really horrible abd disgusting people. TThanks John Reaves, but that kind of help is useless.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is George? It does not appear John Reaves was referring to you as a denier or activist -- he appears to have been referring and drawing a comparison to the IP's Jimbo talk page comments (as being like those of a denier or activist), which started this whole thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alan, if you haven't figured out who George is in this situation by this point, I doubt I can help there. John was attempting to make an illustration and it was done badly. Regardless of anyone pointing fingers at me, you or anyone else, I am not going to use you or anyone else as an example. I will use myself. I know you understand that. I wasn't responding to you Alan, I was responding to George and John. I am not pissed off at John, just that his words were almost as hurtful to at least one editor and was rather awkward.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was misled by the indent that you were responding to me (also the discussion of understanding and 'taking the opposite', which my comment also addressed) (See, WP:Indent). Just FYI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest that we shut this thread down at this time for two reasons: it's unlikely to produce any result that's fair to the subject(s) of the thread, and we're getting into territory where people get so disgusted that they actually leave Wikipedia. I'm not one to trumpet the "real world" ... but corporate culture and educational culture in Western democracies have standard approaches to inflammatory speech in the workplace and in the classroom that seem to work for them, and that seem to avoid exactly the damage that's being done here. There are many valid points of view on how to handle disputes like this ... the problem is we're not getting them that broad range of views, we're getting back-and-forth from people who feel attacked in various ways. That has very little chance of producing a stable or workable solution. I'd like to suggest that we come back to the question of the unblock at another time, and that we have the more general discussion in the context of a well-advertised discussion on the talk page of some relevant guideline or policy page, to add proper context. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Please give the community an opportunity to actually address Nyttend's action. Yesterday was a holiday in the US and several commenters have made compelling arguments. This should be closed properly and in due time, by someone who is not involved. - MrX 13:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not a problem. Regarding "compelling arguments", to be more clear, I replaced "them" by "that broad range of views". - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you Dank. - MrX 14:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Is this argument really worth continuing in this setting? I realize the importance of what is being said, but the bottom line is whether or not to reblock an IP, with the individual in question using a dynamic IP. We generally do not block IP addresses for long periods of time. Yes, it is an expression of community feelings towards the individual's views, but the practical effect seems minimal.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not the bottom line. This discussion is about Nyttend's tool use, which is why it is here not at Incidents. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it's worth continuing since people are still discussing it. At the very least, Nyytend needs to account for his actions and answer some questions. I would not object to moving it to AN/I if that would be a better venue. Also, the user was blocked from editing. Blocking the IP address is a technical issue which can be addressed by blocking the obvious evading IPs, with a notice on the talk pages that legitimate users using the IPs can circumvent the block by registering. (I think there's a template for it, but I can't locate it at the moment). - MrX 14:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Is there any evidence that this IP user has continued being disruptive? On the IP they used or any others? If the IP user really got off scott free as some say he/she did here then most likely it would embolden them to do something like it again and then of course it would be dealt with. The map got deleted so the request was carried out I feel that there is not much more to be said here as dragging this on is just throwing more salt in the wounds. As for Nyytend if you want to throw him in the spotlight then yes WP:ANI I figure is the better place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  I've just gotten Internet access for the first time in several days. Let me just say that we need to treat everyone equally. Blocking the IP for his activism is only appropriate if we block people like Sportsfan for activism for the other side. Block both sides for activism, or permit both sides to express their views, but imposing your morality on someone by blocking only one side is abuse of tools and blatant bigotry. I will not reverse any actions that I've taken in this case. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Well I am happy you got your internet working again, the issue seems to be beyond what you did though. I see a troubling divide here that is getting worse over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Nyttend, your analysis is absurd. Sportsfan5000 wrote:

  "Sorry, can't hear you, the right-wing doesn't play very well where science and rational thinking are needed."

  which I agree is a personal attack, and not at all helpful. The IP started off with an emotional, but marginally acceptable rant. But then she wrote:

  "I deeply resent anyone suggesting that wikipedia is obliged support this sickness and adopt the same bias in the name of "tolerance" and directly label my country in opposition to my country's government."

  which is indisputably a homophic rant, attacking an entire group of people for an immutable characteristic. The IP then wrote:

  "Homosexuals have always judged the entire world through their sore tortured prisms, that's nothing new but they need to get their own wiki or their own pedia, this isn't the homopedia,...",

  again an indisputably homophobic statement. The IP was blocked for "homophobic activism on several pages", which Sportsfan5000 was neither guilty of nor accussed of. If you are not able to see that the IP's behavior is the kind that we should quickly block and ignore, then you should not be an admin, and I will eagerly join in an effort to have you de-sysopped. - MrX 16:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  If Sportsfan needs to be blocked (for a comment he retracted) an uninvolved Admin may do so. Moreover, whether the IP needs to be blocked does not hinge on what is done to Sportsfan. More importantly, Nyttend as an involved disputant should have done nothing as an admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bad admin. I randomly just came across this looking at my watchlist. As a gay editor, I don't normally find talk page homophobia that worrying as most of them are either trolls or go away when they run out of steam.

What is disturbing though (and probably shattered yet another illusion I had of Wikipedia) is to find out that in a community which outright bans editors who engage in hate speech or violent threats, questioning my humanity by comparing it to raping animals and children is seen as merely a "political POV" that should be listened to for the sake of neutrality. And that one of them is an administrator.

I don't give a shit if some editors here don't think that I should get married, or that I would be going to their religion's hell. This is not about letting "both sides express their views" or NPOV. This is about the first entry on WP:NPA#WHATIS. Someone who can't tell the difference has no right to the mop.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was directly involved with this situation and I am getting more and more pissed off. This site's behavioral guidelines and terms of service have been completely ignored in favor of a disruptive, hateful, anonymous IP editor that is supported by an admin who has a clear history of issues. The last Request for Comment/User conduct was three years ago, but it seems Nyttend has found their way back into controversy and refuses to budge from there wheel war unblock of an editor that consensus clearly shows should have that block re-instated.

We treated this IP seriously, we didn't badger them or hound them. We didn't ignore them or fight with them. We looked into the actual situation which had the originating article fully protected for three days and yet, we calmly and succently looked into the situation brought up by this editor in such a horrifying manner and did it with such civiltiy that the three day article protection was lifted in a few hours. But that IP DESERVED that block. It was not heavy handed. It wasn't against mulitple editors or about the ideaology or their personal beliefs. It was for the horrible manner in which it was approached.

Nyttend sickened me. Seriously. I am not just saying this for effect. I am sick to my stomach by what they did. He has taken Wikipedia away from me. I feel targeted directly. Not just because I happen to be a gay man...but because this gay man handled that situation per our policies and guidelines and Nyttend is allowed to screw all of that off and make the victims of this attack to be of absolutely no consequence. This has become a very dangerous place to be when such bullying is allowed...and it is allowed and will get worse before it gets better if the block is not upheld. No one has any rights on Wikipedia. But I am not paid enough for this shit...which is NOTHING. I give to this site...freely and of my own accord. But that changes today.

I am not walking away or quiting. I am just not stupid enough to stay where members are supported for their hatred and encouraged to harrass and bully. This is a serious issue and Wikipedia has become a very dangerous place for gay editors. What really saddens me personally is how neutral and fair I always try to be with opponents of my veiws. How disapointed I was at the mass sanctions after the Manning and Tea Party cases, but now I see I should just be happy that those went to arb com because clearly it arb com that has an issue dealing with civility, harrassment and bullying...it's our administrative core. Nyttend didn't mop anything up. They dumped the bucket of filthy crap all over everyone and did it on purpose with the absolute intention of making a point. I thought such editing itself was against our behavioral guidelines? I guess only when it suits our personal moral standard. And since everyone has such a differing set of morals.....we end up, not just hurting people, but actaully putting them in danger. Yes, Nyttend you put editors in danger and that should NOT be accpetable to anyone.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark can I suggest a WP:BREAK then? You are still seeing red here, and I get the feeling it goes beyond this one incident. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

KK87 has some good advice. Look, what the IP said was understandably upsetting, but Nyttend's actions in no way put editors in "danger" nor is Wikipedia a "very dangerous" place for gays. Exaggeration does not help your case.

You want to be able to speak on behalf of LGBT issues, and you should be able to do so. By the same token, there are editors from countries where being homosexual earns you a death sentence. Some of those editors believe in their countries laws and they should have the right to do so. We don't shut people up because we disagree with their views (unless we are becoming fascist), we block them for direct personal attacks and / or disruption.

There are many countries where I disagree with the countries laws and common viewpoints. That doesn't mean that we silence those from those countries unless they agree with us.

Having said all that, the IP here is from a Verizon account in the U.S. and while it is conceivable that they are from one of those countries, it is doubtful. The block was good, although probably excessive. The unblock was reasonable based on the duration of the block. GregJackP Boomer! 19:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I agree the block was appropriate due to the fact the IP seemed to be deliberately editing in a provocative fashion from the outset, but Nyttend's unblock was premised more on the comment cited to justify the block. Although it is understandably upsetting, the comparison of attitudes towards homosexuality to those towards bestiality and pedophilia is often made during discussions on this matter, including in the United States. While I think such comparisons are misguided and wrong, they should not be the sole basis for action. Nyttend's mistake was not paying closer attention to all the concerns regarding the IP and focusing just on that comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm baffled by the attitude of some editors toward this issue. Blocking the IP was a no-brainer, his homophobic remarks can not be taken as anything else than hate speech, no matter the country he happens to come from. We should not (and I actually thought we did not) tolerate that kind of bigoted opinions because not all opinions should be equally respected. This is political correctness gone mad. Are we going to also tolerate neo-nazis spewing hate too now? I was really hoping that the unblock was simply a bad call, but Nyttend's comment in this thread has made it clear that it was not.

That said, what actually troubles me the most is this comment by Nyttend: Came here from Mark Miller's WP:AN posting. Atlan's comment is a textbook example of how we are nowhere near being neutral on the issue of homosexuality. In favor of pretending that homosexuality is normal/okay/etc.: you're normal and can participate here. Opposed: you're hateful and don't deserve to participate here. Let me remind such commentators that aggressive advancement of such a position is harassment. There are at least two thing frighteningly wrong with this comment. First: "pretending that homosexuality is normal"? "Pretending"? We are "pretending" that it is ok? No one else finds this utterly disturbing coming from a Wikipedia administrator? That he believes we are just "pretending" homosexuality is "normal/okay"? Seriously? Second: "aggressive advancement of such a position is harassment". So it is "harassment" to comment on the bigoted and hateful nature of an openly homophobic editor?

I'm truly baffled here. That a Wikipedia administrator can make comments like this one without getting even a slap on the wrist as a consequence is so extremely disappointing it makes me reconsider my whole involvement with the project. Gaba ^(talk) 23:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Horrendous unblock. I'm a 100% straight editor, but I have friends at various ends of the spectrum - be it gay, bisexual, pansexual, or whatever. The IP clearly and unequivocally earned themselves a block; their language was utterly disgusting, and the fact that anyone has even attempted to condone it is highly disappointing - to put it mildly. Now, let's get to the unblock request. Far from an apology, or even an attempt at making something up, the IP has continued their homophobic ranting. And yet Nyttend still sees fit to unblock. And Nyttend's language generally has been at best poorly worded, and at worst... well, at worst, it means they're on the same level as the IP. Nyttend's flat-out refusal to even attempt to apologize anywhere means that they should be a candidate for desysopping, and I strongly hope someone takes the case to the appropriate venue(s); there is simply no place for an admin willing to disregard policies this flagrantly, and make such appalling remarks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There's no need to get so carried away. Let's hope the IP refrains from inflammatory language in the future; if not, we can consider another block. Our goal should be to try to include people here, and only exclude them if we have to. Let's not tear someone down just for giving someone else another chance. Everyking (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • You don't get it. The admin was involved in breach of their obligations leading to a series of bad decisions, with very disturbing consequences for too many other users. That is not tearing someone down - they are the one who have torn things down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Nobody is "getting carried away". This was a Horrendous unblock. Not only was Nyttend involved with the issue, the unblock request made by the IP was not compliant with any sort of policy. Add to that the reasoning from Nyytend for the unblock(["our policies prohibit blocking people just because they believe something different from the party line amd hereBlocking the IP for his activism is only appropriate if we block people like Sportsfan for activism for the other side"), it is inexcusable that he is still an admin. He should be desysopped. Especially when you consider that he blocked Sportfan5000 using bogus reasoning(Manning arb case), and when he realized he has to unblock Sportfan5000, he then unblocks the IP too 14 minutes later. Severe case of Involved. Someone should definitely take this to DRN and proceed with Desysopping. Dave Dial (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The fact is, Nyttend's views on the matter may seem extreme to a bunch of idealistic young liberals from the city, but they are not that extreme in other social circles. Among traditional social conservatives, a hefty portion of the U.S. population, such comments would be considered quite normal. No one should be sanctioned for expressing views that are generally within the mainstream, even if people with different mainstream views are deeply offended by those views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• In some areas of the world (pretty much the same areas as you have indicated), calling blacks and non-whites the N-word and various other slurs is also considered quite normal. Does this mean that if someone came here spouting those things, we shouldn't ban them too and elect them to WP:RFA? I'm even afraid to ask really. Do we have white supremacist admins who unblocks white supremacist IPs? Stop with the "but they're victims too, they called their political party names!" justification. It's an insult to even suggest that the two are on the same level of offensiveness. You can change political parties, you can't change sexuality. Sportsfan called them idiots. The IP called us pedophiles. Which of these is just a "view" and which of these is extremely dehumanizing? Which of these groups have had people beaten to death using the same justification?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• What upsets me the most is continually seeing these deceitful and prevaricating arguments in an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes a little too far in a direction diametrically opposed to the truth. You are continually trying to equate those with sexual morals that do not include homosexuality, with anti-black racism. Maybe if you looked at that map a little longer you will see why in much of the world this is what we really mean by the "white man's burden". Seeya! 71.246.159.98 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Am I correct in assuming that you are the same person behind the other IP that was blocked? It appears that you are a white supremacist as well as homophobic? I am One of Many (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• How could I be a white supremacist? That accusation makes no sense at all; so you must have gotten lost somewhere. 71.246.159.98 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• My comments are stated as questions not accusations. What did you mean by "white man's burden"? I am One of Many (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly not that being burdened is an attribute of supremacy. 71.246.159.98 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• What truth? That you're a bigot? LOL. And comparing us to pedophiles is not deceitful? Oh, and I am not a white man. If this is what Nyttend is defending, I don't even know why I'm still here. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• The world's two largest religions explicitly regard homosexuality as immoral. Neither of those religions make statements on race, but extend their faith to all those willing to accept it. While it may be the case that not everyone who adheres to Christianity or Islam is going to view homosexuality as immoral, are you going to say we should ban devout Christians and Muslims if they ever express their personal view that it is immoral for man to lie with man as he lies with woman? As I said, the IP was being disruptive for reasons other than the comment you describe, but Nyttend was simply expressing his own view and felt blocking someone else for expressing that view was inappropriate. His mistake was not recognizing that the IP was making other comments that were not just expressing an opinion about sexual morality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I swore to myself two days ago I would stay well out of this, but I think that somehow, in this towering wall of text containing many excellent points, a fundamental distinction hasn't been clearly drawn. In article space, all verifiably significant views are to be treated as equal—allowing for due weight, of course—and Wikipedia takes no position on contentious issues, but this is not true in talk space or project space. In discussions relating to content or contributors, all Wikipedians may reasonably expect their basic human dignity to be respected, and that simply cannot happen when a user employs with impunity speech that is homophobic, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, or otherwise characteristic of hostility or intolerance towards minority populations. Talk pages aren't free-speech zones where anyone can say anything they like because everyone is "entitled" to their opinion. Contributors are entitled only to what the community decides they're entitled to, and that's what this whole kerfuffle is really about: just what are the community standards on the English Wikipedia when it comes to discussion of LGBT topics and treatment of LGBT contributors? Lack of clarity on this question has been a growing problem for years, and we really need to decide.

  Do we as a community expressly decline to condemn certain types of hateful, hurtful behavior in talk page discussions because homophobia and transphobia are still more prevalent in the world than many other forms of prejudice and because certain individuals among us believe that such behavior is acceptable? Or, believing that all contributors regardless of minority status deserve a safe and welcoming environment in which to edit, do we expressly choose not to condone such behavior? The answer we choose will speak volumes about where we see our project (not our article content) fitting into the world of 2013 and beyond. Failure to find an answer will speak just as loudly to our project's dysfunctionality when it comes to finding consensus on ethical matters.

  As for me, I'm saddened to see a longtime administrator effectively trying to apply NPOV to talk space in an absurd effort to defend the indefensible, while making his own offensive remarks in the bargain. This is one of the most disturbing unblocks I've seen in years. Rivertorch (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• @The Devil's Advocate: Nonsense. Rivertorch (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• You are right that editors are not entitled to expressing their heartfelt opinions on Wikipedia, but when an editor does so it should not be cause for sanctions on its own, even if you find that opinion odious. Soap-boaxing and personal attacks are of concern, which is what the IP was doing, not someone stating what one believes on an issue in the course of normal discussion about content or conduct, which is what Nyttend was doing. You are unlikely to find an editor or administrator who does not have some sort of opinion on this issue and keeping one side silent while letting the other speak freely is detrimental to our purpose here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it was the Admin who also soapboxed in a battleground manner, [51] and then used tools in apparent furtherance. Something a regular editor may say and get away with, an admin cannot when they use tools. One of the reasons for that is so such "mistakes," as you call the Admins tool actions, do not happen. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

His comments are no more soapboxing then various comments here criticizing him, nor is there any battleground issue. Nyttend used the tools on a matter where he has strong opinions. Admins do that from time to time, especially on issues where most people have strong opinions. The user's IP had changed already, so there was no real effect of the unblock anyway and the other action was reversed by Nyttend himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong. Most of the folks here are making reasoned arguments about Nyttend's lapse of judgement, and his inability or unwillingness to recognize and correct it. This is not a religious institution, nor is the project beholden to any group's particular cultural views on religious morality, regardless of how large their religion is or how vocal its adherents. Of course, everyone is allowed to believe what they want. The community is very tolerant of allowing people to express their views in a calm, respectful fashion, but there are accepted norms within a civilized society, even on the internet. There are at least several valuable contributors to this project that believe those norms have been violated here. FYI, the way to identify someone who is soapboxing or trolling is that their participation will be almost entirely focused on getting others to see their "truth". They don't build content, or community; they disrupt, they damage and they divide. If you're not able to recognize that fundamental fact, then I feel sad for you. - MrX 18:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your description of soapboxing is apt and I do not see how Nyttend violated that. A contentious unblock of an IP user whose IP had already changed and a contentious block of a user that was reversed by Nyttend himself are not cause for desysopping. Him having an opinion you do not like and expressing it is not a cause for desysopping. Those two things together are not a cause for desysopping. Even if any of these things were cause for desysopping, AN is not a forum for desysopping. AN is not a forum for criticizing editors without end and debating politics either. Unless someone has some sort of action to suggest then this discussion should be closed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins don't get to enter the fray then use thier tools to make their "political" or "religious" or whatever views you wish to label them felt, because they are involved. It is soapboxing and battle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not claim that Nyttend soapboxed, although his comments on Jimbo's talk page may have exposed an unfortunate bias, or they were simply poorly worded. The action that has been called for is for Nyttend to reverse his unblock, which he has declined to do. That itself may not be grounds for desysopping, but if further scrutiny reveals that there are other examples of him violating WP:ADMINACCT, WP:TOOLMISUSE, WP:RAAA and WP:INVOLVED, then I believe a RFC/U and possibly an ARBCOM case may be prudent. As an aside, I notice that the IP continues to opine in this very thread. - MrX 19:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's just killing you, isn't it? Imagine, people who disagree with you opining without your permission and expressing unapproved opinions! Oh, what is to be done? 71.246.159.98 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nothing is "killing" me and I have pretty thick skin, so your words are of no concern to me personally. But I'm a volunteer, and I don't want to donate my time to project where non-contributing users can jab an elbow into the face of an entire class of people who do contribute. I don't wish for Wikipedia to become a free-for-all like Usenet, IRC, 4chan, SDMB, etc. I want Wikipedia to continue to be a collegial community where all are welcome to build an encyclopedia. Simple.- MrX 20:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been a "collegial community where all are welcome to build an encyclopedia", at least not in my time here. It's an experiment in social engineering that failed almost as soon as it started. Eric Corbett 20:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric, it has been a "collegial community"—so long as you agree with the groupthink. Otherwise, the group considers you to be disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 21:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• We have a user that appears to be using multiple IPs
• 71.127.137.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.246.148.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.246.145.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.246.159.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and it is obvious that they are not here to construct an encyclopedia or provide constructive input to this conversation. Do we have to put up with this socking? I am One of Many (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Gee, I wasn't aware that being a user with a dynamic IP was forbidden. I assume that you did notice that they are all from the same general range and that the edit times didn't overlap. Or that they all come back to Verizon. But hey, it's OK because he is saying stuff that I don't like, so it is completely OK for me to try and silence him. We may say that we like all viewpoints, but we lied. GregJackP Boomer! 22:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't "like" all viewpoints and there's no reason why we should. This is an openly homophobic editor, why is it still being allowed to edit?? Do all other admins here actually agree with Nyttend's unblock? He's made it clear he won't retract his terrible unblocking (which is worrisome in itself), is no other admin willing to rightfully block this IP? This is hard to believe. Gaba ^(talk) 23:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I for one am glad that no other admin will block the IP. This is a witch-hunt and is on-par with book-burnings because some do not like the content of the thoughts of either the IP or the book. You are obviously biased against the free expression of ideas and have indicated your support for silencing people for their thoughts. Do you not realize that this can be used against the LGBT community too? Look at the history of the movement—and why many stayed in the "closet" (and still do). How is what they have gone through any different from what you propose to put the IP through? You either believe in free expression or you don't, and you don't silence people because they don't agree with your position. I personally think his position is abhorrent, but I'll always defend his right to have and express that position. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So I'm "biased against the free expression of ideas" because I refuse to accept that an openly homophobic editor can be a part of WP? Because I refuse to believe that his "position" is somehow not pure and simple hate speech? Are you being serious?? Gaba ^(talk) 02:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Free expression my ass. This is not about their viewpoint, this is about our our policy on personal attacks. Are we the exception to policy then? Not human enough yet to be accorded at least some dignity in talk page discussions? Or maybe it's because it doesn't affect you? Go ahead. Try denigrating a wide group of editors here other than gays. Women, religions, other races, other nationalities, whathaveyou. Let's see how long it takes for someone to block you. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Witch hunt Greg? That is fucking laughable. This is about how Wikipedia is showing its true colors as a bigoted and hateful site. Sorry, but that IS my take on this. Disgusting and shameful. But hey...what is good for the goose is fucking GREAT for the gander.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

To call this a witch hunt or to compare it to book burning is pathetically immature, and reveals your contempt for your fellow editors and this project. The person behind the IP is free to go to any number of dark corners of the internet to fully express her views with full impunity. Nowhere on our masthead does it say, "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where any one can express their views, no matter how vile and repugnant." - MrX 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a witch-hunt is exactly what this is, and your statement clearly explains that free expression is OK, so long as it agrees with your position and doesn't offend anyone who holds the same views as you do. Why don't we just find out where people are from, and then we can ban them based on how their country treats gays. That would eliminate anyone from Saudi Arabia, where they still execute people, including their own diplomats (see Ali Ahmad Asseri). Would that also eliminate anyone from the Obama administration, since they want to send Asseri back to be executed? Do we want to ban people from countries that don't execute gays, but just imprison them? That would eliminate 76 countries. Or can we let them in if they make a statement that their country's laws are wrong? What about folks with strong religious beliefs? Should we ban them too? So Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Baptists, Pentecostal Christians, etc., all condemn homosexuality. Wait, we can ban Republicans too—in 2010 the Texas sect of Republicans oppose all sorts of things supported by the LGBT community. We can't allow that thought pattern to spread to Wikipedia. We can also change our motto from "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit (so long as they agree with us)." GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What? Your argument is a giant straw man. - MrX 03:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What I find disturbing are the editors here who are calling out others for being a disgrace to Wikipedia. I may not agree with what you are saying but I will not go off and vent on how someone is a "disgrace". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You realize you just explained our position didn't you? I may not agree with Nyttend or the IP, but I will not go off and vent on how I think they're both sick, twisted, abnormal , and deceitful, and how they should be classified with pedophilia and bestiality. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet some editors on both sides are, if we are going to have a conclusion here shouldn't we first cease the jabs? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are about the only reason I am back here. You can't shut the fuck up so why should I. You have been guilty of the same exact shit you accuse others of. Try to take you own advice and then see if other follow your lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about, I have not been here since the 29th, ([52]. I came back here today because I saw that this was still ongoing, the discussion had petered out and thought it died a natural death. Anyways as I said before if you want to have a review of Nyttend's actions this is not the place to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• @GregJackP and @Nyttend, it is not violation to edit from multiple IPs with good faith WP:IPSOCK. However, the user in question from their very first edit [53], has only been here to push their own political agenda per WP:SOAPBOX. They have not been forthcoming about acknowledging whether they are the same user when asked [54]. It is for these reasons that I question whether we should dismiss their socking as allowed in this case. I am One of Many (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

I would like to know why Nyttend has not responded to the comments and questions made in this section. I am very interested in reading his reasoning for unblocking the IP without discussing the matter here or with George (pardon me if he did, but he didn't as far as I know) and his reasoning for unblocking the IP, generally. In my perspective, George's block was warranted, and many users have concurred with this viewpoint. So now the burden in on Nyttend to explain himself. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already given my reasoning up above and at MrX's talk page: this block was made completely without policy basis, because the blocking policy doesn't permit people to be blocked based on their views. Look at the responses third parties made at MrX's talk page: "we need to stare down those who are not accepting of and glorying in the differences in humanity" (Fiddle Faddle), and I'm one of those who engage in "hate of people that are not heterosexuals" (Dave Dial). So I'm an evil person who needs to be evicted from the project because I disagree with the wikipoliticallycorrect position on this issue? How is this not the witch hunt that is said just above the arbitrary break header? Meanwhile, Sportsfan says down below that I was forced to unblock him. This is far from accurate: other editors questioned my block and suggested that I unblock, and I was going to decline the requests until I saw that Sportsfan said he wouldn't continue with remarks of this type. I routinely reverse blocks that I've placed when given this kind of response (see here for a similar action in an unrelated situation); it's not something that I was forced to do. Finally, see my contributions over the past few days; I've responded whenever someone has left a talk page note or notified me like Hahc21 just now did, but other than that my time's been split between project tasks such as some CFDs and a huge list with tons of data. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, you have dirty hands as an involved participant. You should be sanctioned for this and I fully support any effort to do so. You have undone years of cooperation in one stupid unblock. You may not feel any shame, but I do...by being associated with Wikipedia at the moment. You should consider your unblock as having little consensus and needs to be reversed. It is as simple as that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, to respond to One of Many up above: the person using this IP is being careful to obey our WP:EVADE policy. He could have continued editing on other topics, but instead (if I checked the contribution histories correctly) edited absolutely nothing except the unblock request until I performed the unblock. Please observe that WP:SOCK does not prohibit people from using dynamic IP addresses. Meanwhile, the same person is now being accused of racism, none of which is in evidence among any of the contributions by the four addresses that are linked just above. Why again do we permit this kind of baseless accusations? Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend, for answering my call. I wholeheartedly agree that nobody should ever be blocked just because they have a different view on a single matter, since we should all respect the othe'rs views even if they are extremist like those who are homophobics, xenophobics, and so on. I think that a block or a strong warning was warranted, however, because the IP was being disruptive, apart from presenting their views. One thing is expressing that you are homophobic, or that you have a selected position on a given matter, and other was what the IP certainly did.

Now about witch hunt, I agree that a couple of editors should calm down and evaluate the matter objectively. We might take a look at what happened with the Manning dispute and see how can we learn from that, so that we can avoid future instances of these situations on the future, but oh well. This is why I prefer to stay out of this kind of disputes. What I think can be done is to warn the IP not to fall into hate speech, and close this thread. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless a warning was given somewhere else, the IP was never warned; its talk page never existed until the block message was left. Since when do we block people without warning? We block them for egregious spamming, vandalism, etc., which this isn't. And lest you argue that the IP was spamming his views, look at the last editor whom I blocked: his contributions (example) are spam, but the IP was actively participating in discussions. Finally, Hahc21, I can't completely understand your meaning with "one thing"; please restate it, if necessary using what would otherwise be condescendingly simple language. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm....I have been blocked without warning and it sits there on my block log with an outright lie about the unblock. It was the last block I received. I don't think that your not issuing a warning was needed. What was needed was for you not to involve yourself in the discussion only to abuse you tools almost immediately.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a warning should have been given before blocking, that I agree with. I did not agure that the IP was spamming their views, but that the way it used to express them was pretty suboptimal, in my opinion. Not that I would have blocked the IP right away (Mostly because I don't block that easy, and I don't get involved in these kind of disputes). Finally , apologies. What I meant with "one thing" is that there is a clear difference between expressing your views in a calmed and civil manner, and doing so like the IP did. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend "Since when do we block people without warning?", excuse me but I fail to see your warning over at Sportfan5000's talk page before you blocked him. Care to point me to it? Gaba ^(talk) 02:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, we've never even hinted that the blocking admin needs to give any warnings if other people have. As I told someone (can't remember now who it was), the block was given without warning because Sportsfan had been given a warning of the arbitration case's provisions. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh? How is a discretionary sanction warning given more than a month ago about a completely different topic apply to comments in an editor's talk page? This is what you consider previous warning?? Gaba ^(talk) 03:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

When people violate an arbitration case's provisions and get warned, we routinely block them for violations, even when it's been much more than a month. If you violate the WP:ARBPIA provisions today, for example, imagine what happens if you again violate them in December 2014. Whether or not this case was on the same topic is not an issue for a warnings discussion: either I blocked him on improper grounds, in which case any number of warnings on the Manning topic would not justify the block, or I blocked him on proper grounds, in which case he was properly warned. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We are discussing your terribly inappropriate unblock of an openly homophobic IP editor based on, at least partially, the fact that he was not given a previous warning. Since you did not provide a previous warning for the editor you did blocked (Sportfan5000) and the one given before does not apply at all to a discussion about a completely different topic at an editor's talk page, this points to a very clear double standard on your part. So summarizing you have: 1- blocked an editor with no basis, 2- unblocked an IP editor after engaging in crystal clear hate speech and 3- not only refused to acknowledge any kind of wrong doing, you cemented your position even further with this comment. All of this from a WP admin. Gaba ^(talk) 03:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pictured: not racist. Move along, people.

Familiarity with WP:EVADE only means that there is a high probability that the IP is an experienced editor editing while logged out. The blocking policy does allow the blocking of people based on their views, if the views happen to be derogatory to other editors and thus are not constructive. Wikipedia articles are not censored, they are free to add the fact that there is a widespread belief among conservatives that gays are of the same calibre (if not the same as) pedophiles if they want. But talk pages do not condone personal attacks no matter your views. WP:NPA is still a policy, last time I checked. What's the first definition of a personal attack again?

"Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

As an administrator you should be aware of that already. Or are you telling me that conflating gay people with pedophiles is acceptable and not at all incredibly offensive? And an offhand remark about the white man's burden is not racist to you? It was applied to my people, and I fucking disagree.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the phrase and concept, having read Kipling in secondary school along with a good deal on Scramble for Africa international politics, as well as plenty on Liberian history in grad school. Please read the statement again: "if you looked at that map a little longer you will see why in much of the world this is what we really mean by the 'white man's burden'." Taken in context, the IP is saying that white-majority nations view it as the white man's burden to impose their sexual mores on black-majority nations; it's potentially a reference to incidents such as this one. When you strongly disagree with someone and you say that they're following a course of action, how is that any kind of support for the course of action? Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

First off, it was written about the Philippines. My country. Not Africa. Secondly, in your example, American missionaries (Exodus International) were directly to blame for convincing Uganda to reinstate the death penalties for gays. That's death penalty in case that wasn't clear enough. Even if the IP wasn't being racist and did mean the sanctions imposed by some nations on Uganda etc., it still unequivocally proves his homophobia. I can't think of any other clearer indication of true evil than that of someone who applauds the killing of other people who have done nothing to deserve it. And this is the guy you unblocked, because you think his views are still somehow valuable to us in some way? In what way?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So if someone were to say something along the lines of "I don't agree with same-sex marriage because it is against my morals" we ban the user for being homophobic? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Go read my first reply: "I don't give a shit if some editors here don't think that I should get married, or that I would be going to their religion's hell." Was that not clear enough? I don't care about your disagreement of my views. What I care about is if your way of expressing it is against our policies on WP:NPA. Again that's a POLICY. Why is everybody acting like WP:NPA does not exist? Should we start merging with Metapedia now for the sake of neutrality? Would you be okay if a neonazi starts calling you names? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on the contributor", I saw the IP commenting on the map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If I was a white supremacist and I complain about a picture because it showed n****rs, t****lheads, c***ks, s***cs, wet***ks, etc. who are all subhumans and thus shouldn't be in the article on Homo sapiens, would that be perfectly fine? Also the words in your comment are stupid and ugly. But hey, that's not a personal attack. I'm talking about the words.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I share your frustration, but testing the boundaries of NPA has never been beneficial. Remember that not everyone will agree with you, and that is not a bad thing. We should not be throwing knifes among us for something none of us said, or did. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So, based on OS's logic, I can get all of the American Indian genocide deniers banned? Along with anyone that used or misused the words "chief", "redskin", breed, Tonto, Wahoo, or blood quantum? I mean, a person using the term "redskin" is clearly making a personal attack, even if they are describing the DC football team. I can put a stake up over here in the corner, and we can burn all of the witches... GregJackP Boomer! 05:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Greg im not saying you are wrong, but at this point I would let it go, as per the comment above editors are slicing at each other now rather than really discussing anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP was clearly talking about his/her disgust for gay people. Not a misunderstanding, not a euphemism, not a map, not a football team. And nothing you say can convince anyone with eyes and common sense otherwise. Look at Herostratus' post above where he replaced the IP's exact wording with "Jew". Don't tell me you consider that acceptable discourse in Wikipedia. Much less inoffensive or constructive.

And yes. If people call you any of those words (redskin, halfbreed, etc.) with the intent of insulting you then they should be and would be banned. Although the words you chose are far far tamer than being called a pedophile. And you know why it's tamer? Because gays being deliberately and wrongfully equated with pedophiles is the SAME JUSTIFICATION used for the death penalty for gays in Uganda, as well as various other acts of violence. Do you still not understand why it's extremely offensive?

And yes too, anyone using any of the words I've posted in the last comment with clear intent and unapologetically would also be banned. Or at least I hope so. I challenged you above to call people those names, you haven't tried it yet. Scared huh? So why is this blatantly homophobic IP apparently a special case? Nyttend even goes so far as to imply that homophobia is not real. But then again, when you're the one doing the bashing and the hangings and the ostracization, most people don't really see that as a "fear".

This is not MY reasoning. THIS IS POLICY. Some comments are NEVER acceptable. How many times must I link Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you people actually READ IT? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reading of policy is overly broad. In many of the cultures where homosexuality is punishable by death, it is considered to be on the same moral level as the other types of sexual conduct. In some cases, homosexuality is considered to be a more serious infraction. Look, I don't think that they are right, but making general statements is not a personal attack.

You hit the key point on personal attacks - if they called "me" any of those words. The IP did not single out anyone. OK, so it's offensive, I get that. I'm offended that my nation's capitol has a football team that denigrates Indians. That doesn't mean that the teams supporters should be banned. GregJackP Boomer! 06:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• First things first: Sexology categorically does not cover homosexuality, just transsexuality. It's a long stretch to say that Sportfan's comments regarding the IP count. Second things second: Nyttend absolutely should not have even thought of unblocking the IP. The "pretending that homosexuality is normal/okay" comment just solidifies this. If you have "moral" compunctions about anything, you should not put yourself in a situation where you have to adjudicate on those issues. And the apologism for outright hatred is stunning; if Nyttend had said "in favor of pretending that women are equal/worthy of respect/etc" for "moral reasons", would we accept it? I doubt it wouldn't. As the Manning fallout has already proven, the community is failing LGBT editors, and at this rate, I'd be fine with the WMF laying waste. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. The free expression of ideas is not real popular with the activist crowd when the ideas do not support their position. GregJackP Boomer! 12:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's make an analogy here: suppose that I'm working in admin at, say, Network Rail. I hear someone loudly complain to the office manager that they oppose money being spent allowing "faggots to prance around", referring to some people in the office carrying a banner at Pride next week. Being LGBT, I complain to HR, only to find out that no action is taken against that person because the disciplinary panel had that person saying "well, I don't want faggots to prance around" and the person adjudicating said "I agree, so we're not going to do anything". How do you think head office would react? Or my union? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll give you an answer as soon as I get paid by Network Rail. But seeing as how that is not going to happen, and seeing as how you are not an employee of Wikipedia or WMF, asking an employment question is not really relevant. In the UK, one thing would happen, in the US alone there are 50 possible answers (since LGBT individuals are not members of a protected class in the US), and in Saudi there is yet another answer. It boils down to free expression of ideas. Either you support it or you don't. It's not a sliding scale, it's not a balancing test, you either allow expression that you disapprove of or you don't. I personally think that the IP is wrong, but he or she have the absolute right to their opinion, and Wikipedia should not be the thought police. GregJackP Boomer! 13:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the NDP the Foundation have covers users of Wikipedia too. And the employment question is relevant as we always emphasise professionalism and the such as if we're an ersatz workplace. The IP is entitled to their opinion, but doesn't have the right to shout it in the workplace where other people are trying to work. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so which jurisdiction do we follow as an ersatz workplace? The UK, which is where I assume you are? Florida (where some of the servers are)? California (servers)? Virginia (servers)? Texas (my location)? Saudi (potential users)? I ask, because your answer determines what rights are in place. I think that you would be surprised, but what the IP is saying does not approach harassment levels in the US, not even close. GregJackP Boomer! 14:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal and straw poll

As is frequently the case, nothing productive will will be accomplished here at AN. There are two issues as I see it:

1. We have an IP who may or may not continue to disrupt the project. I propose that we ignore her, and if she is again disruptive, an uninvolved admin will hopefully take matters in hand.
2. Several editors have suggested that Nyttend's actions in this case are inconsistent with adminship, some going as far as calling for desysopping. I propose that we explore Nyttend's admin actions in the structured environment of an RFC/U. If that fails to yield results that the community can live with, then seeking an ARBCOM motion or case would be the next logical step. Please signify you support or opposition in the appropriate section below. - MrX 03:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. - MrX 03:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
2. - Option 1 as to the IP. GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
3. - Option 1 as to the IP. I have seen no evidence yet that the IP has continued to act in a disruptive way In any of it's incarnations. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
4. - Both  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Option 1 Everyking (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Option 1. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Option 1 & 2 Dave Dial (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Support option two but feel the ublock needs to be reversed.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Option 1 I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Option 2 but the IP should still be blocked. Gaba ^(talk) 12:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
11. Support both option one and option two. KonveyorBelt 17:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
12. Of course anyone who wants to do an RFCU may do so. The only reason to oppose (beside the fact that a straw poll makes little sense) would be to censor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
13. Option 1. Miniapolis 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. - Option 2 as to Nyttend. GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
2. - Option 2 as to Nyttend. It is harassment to accuse one of being a homophobe just because they come from a different culture or have a different belief. Respect for everyone's beliefs is what makes us a neutral encyclopedia. If editors spout their hate on editors or a group of editors that is where we take action but we can not simply block an editor for having an opinion on content here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Struck comment per ΛΧΣ's comment below, lets just put this matter behind us now
3. Option 2 Everyking (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Option 2. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Option 2 per Hahc21 (below) I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
6. just oppose. Both. All. Nothing seems to have come of the unblock. It appears all focus is on punishment. The reality is that if the IP is not disrupting WP, the unblock, in hindsight, was correct. Why would anyone, absent active disruption want to reblock? Am I missing disruption that the unblock of the IP has caused? --DHeyward (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Both. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Option 2 - This is not something worthy of an RfC/U, never mind an arbitration case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Both options per DHeyward. De728631 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Option 2. Miniapolis 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments, if you absolutely must

• I support option 1, provided there is real disruption. General comments about her views would not normally be disruption, even if others don't like her views. GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Option 2 is unrealistic. I'd give you that several users disagree with Nyttend's unblock of the IP, but an isolated event has not enough weight to warrant an RfC/U, less an ArbCom case, which would be summarily declined (believe me). The only solution is to all stop making comments you'd later regret, call it a day, warn the IP that they are being watched, and go make something else. If somebody is being homophobic or racist, the best way to prove them that we don't care about them is ignoring them. Paying too much attention to what they say is exactly what they want, and it's both a waste of time and unconstructive. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  It's not an isolated event; it's a series of admin events and a refusal to address it, which compound into a serious breach of trust. Are there similar incidents by this admin? I'm not sure, but he has had a previous RFC/U, so I don't think this course of action would be unrealistic at all. - MrX 05:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, so what's your proposed path to be followed? If Nyttend reverses the block, it would be punitive, not preventative. And blocks are not punitive. Also, if he reinstates the block, the drama won't be over; it will just change directions. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Frankly, I'm not concerned about the IP. IPs troll all the time. I am concerned that an administrator that was Involved in a dispute took it upon himself to not only block an editor but to unblock another editor. An outright egregious unblock. The unblock request was not compliant with any GAB guidelines. The IP was not sorry for comparing Homosexuals to pedophiles and bestiality perverts. And the IP was not sorry for using a heading that used key homophobic wording. "Flamingly obvious" "Flamboyantly biased". A clear abuse of the tools by an admin. Dave Dial (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• This. I too wouldn't normally give my time of day to comments like the ones the IP made. They're not worth the attention. The problem lies in the fact that the IP was not only unblocked for all the wrong reasons but is also being defended by an administrator who seemingly share the same views.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not go as far as to say that Nyttend "seemingly share[s] the same views" than the IP. My understanding is that Nyttend believed that Georgewilliamherbert blocked the IP because of their point of view, which is not a blockable offense, and then proceeded to unblock under these grounds. His unblock theoretically makes sense, although I think that Nyttend misrepresented the original reasons for the block (e.g. George blocked for disruptiveness, not POV). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It amazes me to see the number of editors who are just dying to sweep this issue under the carpet. Very disappointing. Gaba ^(talk) 13:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What amazes me is the number of people willing to silence opposing views by labeling it as "hate speech"—I hate to break the news, but speech is speech. You either support the right of people to believe differently than you do, or you don't. It's that simple. GregJackP Boomer! 13:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't, and trying to force a false binary choice on this debate is unhelpful. As almost everyone who has criticised the unblock has made quite clear, it is perfectly logically coherent for me to simultaneously believe that people are entitled to have beliefs that I find odious, and that airing those views in a manner likely to cause offence is incompatible with the editing environment that Wikipedia seeks to create, and therefore potentially justifies a block.--Korruski^Talk 15:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So if the views are "odious" and you are offended by them being aired, it would justify a block. So lets say we have an admin from Yemen, a devout Muslim, who is offended by an editor's pro-LGBT statements and considers them "odious." So that admin could then block the pro-LGBT editor? I see, it is so much clearer now, since you would allow both groups to be silenced and blocked. That is what you are saying isn't it? GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it clearly isn't, and you can wind in the sarcasm a bit. Wikipedia, like very many other working environments (including international ones) has certain norms. Like it or not, one of those is that openly homophobic remarks are generally considered unacceptable while pro-LGBT remarks, even if they cause offence to some, are not. Your brand of 'all speech is free, all opinions are equal' cultural relativism is all very interesting in theory, but in practice it's not how we work. Take it or leave it, agree or disagree, I'm not overly concerned. It doesn't have a huge impact on me because I've long since stopped caring what people on the internet say, but given the choice I'd still rather homophobic remarks were kept off Wikipedia.--Korruski^Talk 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Process check - I am willing to file this RFC/U, but the process requires that "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." I have done this, but no one else in the support section has tried to resolve this with Nyttend on his talk page. If anyone wants to complete this certification step, please ping me after you have started a discussion with Nyttend. I don't want to have the RFC/U rejected on a technicality because this is not literally a "talk" page.- MrX 14:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• So, are you saying that, regardless of how the vote turns out, you are going to be filing an RfC/U anyway?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think my English usage is fairly clear: "I am willing to file this RFC/U". This is a straw poll, a vote with nonbinding results. I'm trying to gauge whether other user's believe that an RFC/U is appropriate. If no one is serious enough about it to follow through with the process, then it would be rather futile for me to proceed alone. - MrX 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that it is running 8-4 against an RFC/U? GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a formal vote here, the only voting on Nyttend's behavior will come at a Rfc/U. KonveyorBelt 17:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. If the fact that the community is 2:1 against, then this is a straw poll and doesn't count. That way we can start an RfC/U, which we intended to do anyway, we just thought that the community would be supporting it. Oops. But it's OK, 'cause we can still file the RfC/U and then act surprised at the response. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The intent was to gauge the response, and the response has been gauged. Whether MrX will go ahead with the Rfc is his decision. KonveyorBelt 17:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - regarding your process concerns. I do not believe there is anything preventing you from filing a RFC/U. But I would say that since Nyttend has already been the subject of a RFC/U for abusing his admin tools, the next step is an ARbCom case. The admin is obviously not concerned with other editors opinions that he was involved and should not have blocked Sportfan50000 and then unblocked the IP. The evidence is there that he has abused his tools. So if you wish to take the next step, I think ArbCom is next. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I doubt that Arbcom will take the case but editors can try. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm in no position to figure out all the factors going into whether the block and unblock were appropriate, but I strongly oppose any effort to ban "hate speech" on Wikipedia that is a statement of belief or opinion rather than directed harassment of editors or otherwise already prohibited by policy. We need to reconfirm that Wikipedia is not censored, and we will not exclude the viewpoints of those who, as some here point out, are still an unfortunately large proportion of the world population, before any decision is made about Nyttend. Otherwise he will not be getting a fair consideration. I should emphasize that while European countries have toyed with efforts to ban hate speech, the result of their efforts is a resurgence of racism and thinly disguised far-right policies, while in the U.S., the legal expression of such sentiments has not prevented landmark progress in defeating bigoted attitudes even when it comes to Presidential elections and military service. Please follow the winning model! Wnt (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Nyttend's Arbitration block of Sportfan5000

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 above unblock was undone right after this admin was compelled to unblock me from an Arbitration block on the same incident, which apparently can't be simply undone by other admins. "This block is related to the Manning naming dispute Arbcom case and this comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)" Everyone else who commented wondered what this had to do with the Arbitration case. Their explanation was [55] - "Sportsfan attacked a really broad class of people specifically on a gay-rights issue, despite recently being warned of the provisions of the arbitration case. It's bad enough to make attacks on broad classes of people, but the attack was also quite clearly directed toward the person who originated the thread." Later another admin moved [56] the note to the "Sexology" case. I feel the block was not needed in the first place as a warning would have done just as good, previously I was in trouble for reverting, not comments. I'd like my slate cleaned a bit of violating Arbitration cases. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• It was an invalid arbitration block as the discretionary sanctions apply to paraphilia classification and transgender issues. Comments about the status of homosexuality and political attitudes towards it are not within the scope of the discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• As one of the parties to Sexology, I always thought that the general probation was too wide, especially as the disruption in the case only related to areas about the medical aspects of transsexuality, not the legal or social aspects. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit to some concern over Nyttend's actions here. I asked him to unblock Sportfan5000 - which he obligingly did - since I could see no reason for the Manning Abitration case to apply to Sportfan5000's comment. However, the fact that Nyttend would then unblock the IP Sportfan5000 was opposing - using a rationale that could have applied equally to Sportfan5000's block - does smack somewhat of bias. Nyttend is perfectly entitled to his own views on homosexuality and right-wing politics, but I have to admit, this does look on the surface rather like personal opinion entering into a block/unblock decision. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Above comment struck, since it reads as though I'm making an assumption about Nyttend's beliefs, which I'm not trying to do. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• At any rate, the comment by Sportfan5000 was bigoted, intolerant and hateful, and it indicates his inability to be part of a collegial community that includes people with differing viewpoints. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 05:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  I assume that was meant as some sort of heavy-handed satire. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  No, it was not. This is bigotry too. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 05:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  And that comment was struck, when brought to his attention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Are you telling me he had no idea that his comment would be offensive? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  No. Did you read what I wrote?Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since it was not a proper block under that Arb remedy, it appears to further confirm that Nyttend was involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• It would help if you would wonder about my familiarity with the case; I was unaware that this case was meant to be construed as it's being here. And how can "right-wing doesn't play very well where science and rational thinking are needed" be anything other than bigoted, intolerant, or hateful? Somehow it would help if a block made with accusations of homophobia (hardly a neutral term by itself) were seen as neutral, while my actions are seen as bigoted and hateful. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Y'know, I just read through this, and I guess I can see, based on the information quickly available to me, how maybe the lifting of the block might have made some sense at the time. Some, admittedly few, editors of long standing have had some pretty dubious starts, and I can see how someone might be willing to give a newbie IP editor a bit of a chance to improve. Maybe - that sort of thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen. And we have kept a few clearly biased editors around for some time, like User:BruceGrubb, even if many or most of their edits were perhaps less than really productive. This was clearly a judgment call, and, like a lot of judgment calls around here, can and often is made the subject of sometimes undue attention. And, I suppose, yeah, I can see how someone who unblocked someone who was blocked for making disparaging comments about a specific group could be seen as maybe at least being unlikely to be a member or fervent supporter of that group, and perhaps criticized on that basis. The block seems to have been reasonable, and the unblock, while perhaps it could be criticized after the fact, isn't the first such unblock made by an admin that proves, after the fact, to maybe be less than optimal. FWIW, "homophobia" is a bit of a loaded word, and one some people like me, who have some reservations about the possible long-term cultural effects of equating homosexual relationships to heterosexual marriages that can at least often result in children and continuation of society, find used against them even when we don't really object to homosexuality per se, but have some reservations about changing the cultural/sociological status quo or status pro ante. Nyttend almost certainly wasn't trying to act on bias of any sort, but was probably exercising his best judgment, like he is supposed to do. Maybe, in this case, he got it wrong, or might think twice before doing something similar again. It looks like he may have, in the interest of some form of "fairness", chose to revert blocks of two combatants, just like sometimes we wind up blocking or otherwise sanctioning both combatants in arguments. It might after the fact be seen as indicating less than optimal judgment, or it might also be seen as being an attempt to be "fair" or at least equitable to both sides in an argument. Sometimes that sort of thing actually gets support around here. And Devil's Advocate makes good points about how the block falls outside the parameters of the relevant arb com.
• If this editor, under whatever name or IP, continues to edit problematically (and it looks like they are), they will be (or maybe at this point are?) blocked for that. If they don't, and he or she becomes a productive editor elsewhere, or less problematic on this topic, then we have one more editor than we had before, which is a good thing. Sometimes, giving someone one more chance to either show they are willing to behave or alternately hang themselves is the best way to go, as it provides at least one more piece of evidence in a maybe iffy decision. I can't fault someone for that. If, however, the further evidence proves just as negative, then we can throw the book at them with even fewer reservations the second time. John Carter (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter: The block of Sportsfan was not reasonable under the Arbcom case, since it is not supported by it. Moreover, Nyttend was involved ([57]) and should have not been using tools to make a point (blocking/unblocking - it does not matter). If Sportsfan needed to be blocked (for a comment he struck) an uninvolved admin may do so but not under a spurious arbcom remedy that does not apply. But to block Sportsfan because of disagreement with the block of the IP, or to unblock the IP because one thinks that Sportsfan should be blocked is tool misuse for an involved adminsitrator. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend where was your good faith? You did not assume good faith when you made your statement accusing all Wikipedians of "pretending" something you apparently disapprove of. You did not assume good faith when you did not warn Sportsfan for a comment he would strike, and without warning blocked him under a spurious rational. You did not assume the good faith of Georgewilliamherbert (and breached WP:RAAA in the process). So, no your plea for the assumption is not backed up by the evidence of your misuse of tools and the statements you made doing so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I will repeat what I said above, comments made to the IP include: "You're making a fuss out of nothing." and from Sportsfan5000 "OMG! The Gays are at it!" Even if it was made as a joke, the IP user made the first post first comment towards Sportfan5000 and none other which is telling that it could have provoked a reaction. The comment afterwards: "Sorry, can't hear you, the right-wing doesn't play very well where science and rational thinking are needed" pretty much had things going downhill from there. Now I don't know if the block was justified but Sportsfan5000 played into it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am still looking to be cleared of violating an Arbitration agreement case. As everyone seems to agree that i didn't violate either of the two Arbitration cases could [58] that action be removed? Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss it with Rschen7754 as he added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable for any admin to strike through the entry with a note that Nyttend had reversed the block and a note that there was a consensus the action did not fall under the purview of the discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it was never an Arbitration block to begin with, why should it remain in any form? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Keeping a record of such a thing can be useful in its own way. As long as it is made abundantly clear that you were blocked wrongly should it really make a difference?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess not, as long as it happens. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, y'all, I'll take a look at this if nobody else is, but I'm going to ask Nyttend and Rschen for their comments before I act; just so you know. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, after hearing back, I've stricken the log entry and added a note saying the block was in error, with reference back to Nyttend's post to my talk page. @Sportfan5000: @The Devil's Advocate: does that suffice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:62.88.128.136

This anonymous user always vandal. He added the joke in Sergio Busquets. This is proof: old version Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Final warning given. IP seems to have stopped for now. The place to report vandalism is WP:AIV. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects

Hello friendly admins... I noticed that the backlog at Special:BrokenRedirects has got quite long. Apparently bots are no longer doing the work of deleting broken redirects. Could some of you please take a look at this report and possibly delete some of the broken redirects listed there? Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This has mostly been done now. Thanks very much to Diannaa and R'n'B! — This, that and the other (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I work on Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects whenever I can. I can batch-delete thousands of broken redirects that are former titles of now deleted pages because the deleting admin didn't check for redirects (I've ranted about this in the past, I know). But I'm a slacker, what can I say. More troubling is that a few pages keep getting added to the DBR despite not being broken redirects in any way; I remove them and they get added right back... so I'm unsure what do to about those, if anything. I have not knowledgeable at all about how these reports are generated. A quick exmple of this issue: the two SPI reports that keep popping up as "broken redirects". If someone with time, willingness and know-how can look into this, it might be something worth fixing! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• By Odin's scraggly beard, was it really as fucking simple as a goddamn underscore? @This, that and the other:, you have my thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• A new version of Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects has not been generated since Nov 4. I have posted on the bot operator's talk and hopefully that part of the problem will get rectified shortly. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Updates are irregularly infrequent at best. I only run through it once a month or so anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• On closer inspectionl I doubt that actually has anything to do with it. If/when the reports are moved to Labs, these weird database issues should hopefully clear up (or at least decrease in number). — This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken redirects (configuration) should be updating daily. The Toolserver is on a slow march to its death. I imagine moving all of the reports to Labs would help. Any volunteers? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Help request

I may need help on the article Hugo Treffner Gymnasium due to a conflict of interest from two editors editing the page. The user IvarVi (talk · contribs) is a student editing the page for schoolwork, and an editor editing from the IP address 80.250.112.173 (talk · contribs) is their teacher. A relevant discussion is on my talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In connection with this, I left a message on the teacher's talk page, explaining that it was not appropriate to ask other Wikipedia users not to edit a specific article so that his students could work on it exclusively, and suggesting that he create an account and copy the article to userspace so that the students could work on it there. I also pointed him to WP:Education program. Anyone with additional thoughts might want to add to the thread there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass creation of very improbable redirects

I first left a note at User talk:Rybec#Redirects, but I have since noted that other editors like User:Anthony Appleyard do the same, so I'll post it here instead (I'm not going to try to find every editor who has done this individually).

User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks is a list of pages with lots of page views, but no article or redirect (yet). Some editors use this page to create the redirects, to help those editors using these search terms. The problem is that the page (or the script behind it) has a problem with unusual letters, accents, and the like, rendering them rather bizarrely. The result is that redirects are created with claims that they have been used thousands of time per month, while in reality they are never used (obviously, since they are extremely improbable).

Examples;

• Mar\xC3\xADa Gabriela Isler was created as a redirect because it supposedly was used as a search term "2036 tries/week". In reality, It had been used 0 times in the last 90 days([59].
• Gisele B\xC3\xBCndchen
• Lo Que La Vida Me Rob\xC3\xB3
• Te Ika-a-M\xC4\x81ui
• Cambodian\xE2\x80\x93Thai border dispute
• Raven-Symon\xC3\xA9
• 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification \xE2\x80\x93 UEFA Second Round
• Rhinoceros Party of Canada (1963\xE2\x80\x931993)
• Kimi R\xC3\xA4ikk\xC3\xB6nen

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of these created by at least three editors over multiple months. This should a) stop, b) gett mass-deleted, and c) the list corrected. Fram (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As an example of the improbability of this list; Lady Saigō has been viewed 1634 times in the last 90 days[60]. But the redirect Lady Saig\xC5\x8D was created because it was claimed to have had more than 1,000 views in a week[61]. It is unusual for redirects to have more page views than the actual target page, I think... Fram (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

yes, there is definitely something amiss here. GiantSnowman 11:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found a short old discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 113#Are thousands of people a day not finding the articles they want? which may be of interest. Fram (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• At the top of User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks it says that "Entries containing \x appear to originate from percent encodings of real titles but with % incorrectly replaced by \x (discussion). The error is probably made by some external software." Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering that none of these appear on stat.grok.se (the page view statistics), I wonder whether the errors aren't created by some internal software instead of external software. In any case, there seems to be little value in creating these redirects, and (as indicated below) some potential problems with using this list). Fram (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree, about the \x redirects, they don't appear to be useful and they aren't actually receiving any hits. I started looking at some other redirects that seemed silly and were created such as 2006 FIFA World Cupm (compare to 2006 FIFA World Cup), and grok.se actually did turn up some stats: "2006 FIFA World Cupm has been viewed 5620 times in the last 30 days." I could probably argue for the deletion of that redirect as nonsense, but you have to wonder why there was a spike in people typing "Cupm" for no apparent reason. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the developer, these assumptions are mistaken. There is an issue here: This \x thing is a real problem. It doesn't appear like it is a problem because stats.grok.se is broken in the way that it handles these requests. Let's work with the Brandon Ríos article as an example. This is percent encoded in Wikipedia's backend systems as Brandon_R%C3%ADos. If you try entering this encoding into stats.grok.se, it is the equivalent to searching for "Brandon Ríos" sans encoding (many recent hits). The problem here surrounds Brandon_R\xC3\xADos. Stats.grok.se says no views for this exist. However, go on over to the raw daily statistics traffic files which WE BOTH aggregate over. Get a file from late last week (this is largely hypothetical, you don't need to do this, these are BIG files, and I've done it; but someone could recreate this to show I am not lying) then "grep/search" that file and you will plainly see lines corresponding to Brandon_R\xC3\xADos (i.e., views). These are the views correctly reported at WP:TOPRED. Something about the stats.grok.se input screws up these cases. I assume it has something to do with the way escape characters or encoding are handled (it is tricky). I have spent many many hours investigating cases at WP:5000 and WP:TOPRED where users indicate my numbers do not agree with those of stats.grok.se. Every time I can point to evidence in the raw files which support my aggregation (see a recent one). I write only to confirm that some software out there is trying \x encoding and serving red links. I will support whatever policy the community decides regarding whether these redirects should be created (or alternatively, code could be created in software that handles them automatically). West.andrew.g (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there were a couple of others with an m or an n added which got created and get quite a few hits. It looks like some bot, or another non-human error, not thuosands of humans suddenly deciding that Michael LeMoyne Kennedyn4000 hits this month is more logical than Michael LeMoyne Kennedya(0 hits) or any other extra letter. I don't think we should be basing the creation of redirects on such obvious non-human results (just check [62] thoroughly and the pattern of additional "m" or "n" becomes extremely obvious. On the other hand, the page also lists Ramesh Tendulkar, which contrary to all these dubious ones has not been created as I write this down, but which is an actual, correct, human search term for either Sachin Tendulkar or his father. Fram (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • User:Vanisaac/test/4 - Oh boy.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
      • That's helpful, a partial list of what to nuke! Fram (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I totally support the deletion of the redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• I agree, the creation of these redirects needs to stop. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20#Opera (web browser)m for a recent example of a discussion in which the consensus was to delete a large number of implausible redirects. One of the issues raised in the discussion was the implausibility that a human (and not a malfunctioning bot/script) would have generated the supposed demand for these redirects. WJBscribe (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• About page Mar\xC3\xADa Gabriela Isler above :: is http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Mar%5CxC3%5CxADa_Gabriela_Isler counting accesses from outside, or accesses from within Wikipedia, or both, or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages with "\x" in the title always show zero hits. If you change "\x" to "%" the site will decode the special characters and redirect you: for instance, if you try to see the statistics for Mar%C3%ADa Gabriela Isler you will be redirected to the statistics page for María Gabriela Isler. —rybec 06:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a warning to the TopRedlinks page, here. Please remove, make stronger, make more visible, ... if this isn't enough or too much. Fram (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  The warning seems like a good idea to me. Should we add something to say that this is not an appropriate task for automation and that each new redirect must be individually considered? Anyone who uses AWB to mass create these redirects now that the issue has been flagged up should really have their AWB access revoked. WJBscribe (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice of you to keep an open mind until you've talked with the people actually making these things. First of all, every one of these is individually considered, and I consider it to be extremely bad faith for you to have accused me otherwise. (BTW, nice job, Fram et al, of notifying involved editors) If the term is not so common that I have no doubt that we don't have that article, I will check on the target by hand, but I am not a bot, and I apply editorial judgement to each redirect created. So far, I've ended up with a bot having to fix a double redirect only twice out of around 700 of these. Second, what is your solution? Take a look at the stats pages: this is not some errant bot pinging the site over and over: these page requests show the unmistakable sign of human behavior: a big initial jump and slow trail-off - I've even noticed a double spike, where the link is obviously posted a second time somewhere else. These are links getting posted somewhere, with real, actual people trying to access these pages. Now I don't know why they are getting mangled, or where they are coming from, but my back-of-the-hand calculation puts these new redirects as serving about half a million page requests per week. I don't know what the answer to fixing this is, but until you come up with something better, please don't threaten those of us who are trying to mitigate the problem. Half a million people trying to access specific pages on this site and being thwarted is a real problem, so tell me what solution is better than redirects. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 02:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bit defensive don't you think? How about "yes, I agree they should be individually considered and that is what I do..." Why assume I'm accusing you of not individually considering redirects you have created? My point is a simple one - don't use automation for large numbers of controversial edits. Creating these redirects is clearly controversial, so users wanting to work from these lists need to be very careful that they are establishing a consensus for their edits. Also, I think we're exaggerating the consequence of what the lack of these redirects will do. There's no evidence that a human user (if it really is a human) will simply give up without these redirects, rather than just search for the article they are looking for some other way. WJBscribe (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not sure how your statement that you do consider the redirects individually squares with your comment that, having been told a number of redirects were deleted following an RfD discussion, "Well, if they show up in this week's run, I'll be recreating them - surely individual consideration would include making sure the redirects had not already been considered by the relevant community process and deleted? WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are individually considered. The criteria are: 1)are they getting over a thousand redlink requests a week (from the list)? 2) is it a legitimate target to redirect to? 3) is the requested page a legitimate target in and of itself? If it passes #1 and #2, and fails #3, that's my criteria. #3 is important: we've had several dozen +p page requests, but I can't make a legitimate justification that Catp or SQLp and similar page requests aren't technical terms that should be left for someone to make an actual article. Likewise, I don't know enough about marketing and gadgets to say that Samsung Galaxy S IIm isn't a new product in the pipeline, so it doesn't get one. I've engaged people at the redlink talk page on numerous occasions about how to go about doing this, trying to get feedback on what the criteria should be for when we nuke these guys. Because yes, I don't like them at all - that's why I kept a list of every last one created - but I can't ignore half a million hits per week, and I still don't see any suggestions about how to handle these any better. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 12:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Chiming in (since Fram left me a message and I did create a few redirects before I thought better of it): I agree with Fram and support deletion of these redirects. Trivialist (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are many reasons for redirects. Some are valid, some not. Most on User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks appear to be errors in Wikipedia bots. Underscores, and trailing single letter such as 'n' or 'm' appear to fit into this case. I recommend posting on Bot owners' noticeboard to see if the cause of some of the issues can be identified. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:37, 29 November 2013

• Distinct from my role as the person who generates these reports, and as I mentioned at User_talk:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks#trailing_m_and_n, I don't support the creation of these redirects. One primary reason is that we are treating the symptoms and not the cause of the errors. The \x encoding and "m/n" issues are almost certainly errors in software. When we provide redirects for broken software, we are obfuscating the fact something is wrong to those software users, causing possible further distribution of buggy software. They should hit a red link, as it makes obvious something is broken. Now, I think WP:TOPRED is a valuable resource that can guide article creation and (as we are learning here) provide insight as to how API software, crawlers, etc. might be mis-configured. However, we need to reign in which redirects are created. Consider also there is some evidence (see the "topred" archives) that people are spamming\visit redlinks (perhaps with a bot) in order to bolster the fact an article should exist (essentially an AfD "keep" tactic)? West.andrew.g (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Just like to note here that the comma key and the m key are right next to each other on most keyboard layouts. I've seen this outside Wikipedia, in family tree records. Occasionally someone will be said to have been born in "New Yorkm" or similar. Which means it could, or may have already done so, find its way here.--Auric talk 03:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note, since it doesn't seem like anyone has mentioned this yet: wherever the slashes and random symbols are in the redirects above, there is a letter with a diacritic or some other mark on the letter on its target's title. As mentioned someplace else in this discussion, this has to most likely be a software problem of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

More serious than improbable misspellings alone

Delving further into this, it appears that based on the same page (e.g. [63]), redirects for other terms are created as well, e.g. Arabic texts to Wikipedia pages. Perhaps not a problem in theory (though of dubious value), but when you are creating redirects to e.g. Pornography, as most of these were (I also saw one to Zoophilia, and recent ones to Penis and Buttocks (you may notice a pattern here)), you have to be extra careful not to create BLP violations and the like. One such redirect was from سكس ليلى علوى, an entry on the top redlinks list, which redirects to pornography but gets translated (by Google Translate) as Sex Leila Alawi, where Leila Alawi is Laila Elwi, an Egyptian non-pornographic actress. It looks like that page is a combination of script errors and some external manipulation (I doubt that there are really suddenly thousands of people looking for سكس بنات المدرسه ("sex girls school") on enwiki). Fram (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• This seems more and more like there are a few users who are blindly creating redirects without actually knowing what they mean, which is grossly irresponsible behavior. Looking at this example my feeling is that we should delete all such redirects and the persons who created them can then go back through the list and make sure they actually know what it is they are creating instead of just blindly following automated suggestions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• The first one Fram mentions, I have nuked from orbit. I've got to say, I support a mass culling of this nonsense within normal processes, but that BLP one had to go. Courcelles 17:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Rybec's reply

The "\x" encoding was discussed back in June, and someone requested that the Mediawiki software decode "\x" to "%"

If some definite pattern can be detected, such as these URLs with non-standard hexadecimal escapes, and there are substantiated expectation that it will persist, then developers should consider some URL rewrite built into the engine.

It's very likely that stats.grok.se does this decoding, hence it will always show zero requests for these mojibake, no matter how many actual requests there were. I suggest fixing the Mediawiki software before deleting the redirects.

The Arabic redirects were discussed earlier this month, at [64]. I've only created two since then, طيز and زب. As Fram notes, they redirect to Penis and Buttocks. However, it's Fram who has redirected them to those pages. I had created them as soft redirects to pages on the Arabic Wikipedia about the exact Arabic terms. In other words, I had made [[en:طيز]] a soft redirect to [[ar:طيز]] and made [[en:زب]] a soft redirect to [[ar:زب]]. Fram objects to the fact that en:طيز redirects to en:buttocks and the other redirects to penis after Fram's own changes [65] [66]. This puzzles me. The documentation for Template:Soft redirect advises its use for making "short pages inviting readers to visit another page on a different Wikimedia project."

I think the Arabic-language traffic may be from people attempting to bypass censorship, or an intersection of:

1. people who look for pornography on the Web
2. browser software that has a Wikipedia search feature
3. computers with English-language browsers, which search the English Wikipedia when that search feature is used
4. people who speak Arabic
5. people who use their browser's default search engine to find pornography

The Arabic Wikipedia has pages called طيز and زب; although it's not customary, I think it's helpful to users of the site to provide links for popular search terms in foreign languages. According to stats.grok.se, one of these terms received 24,509 hits on the English Wikipedia in the 90 days before I created it, and the other 28,188. I think directing readers to the Arabic Wikipedia is appropriate when they make a search such as this; the interwiki links provide a means of navigation back to the English Wikipedia.

Let's add How to write Simple English articles to this discussion. I created it as a soft redirect to [[simple:WP:How to write Simple English articles]]; instead of mentioning it here, Fram simply deleted it. According to stats.grok.se it was requested 4385 times in the past 90 days. Fram called it a cross-namespace redirect, but it was not: instead, it sent readers to the Simple English wiki.

I requested creation of Your first article as a cross-namespace redirect to WP:Your first article. It's been created as a soft redirect. It received 21,519 requests in the last 90 days.

—rybec 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It does seem a little puzzling for Fram to be complaining about redirects that they made themselves. That seems to deserve a response. Bovlb (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across these soft redirects when patrolling new pages. Soft redirects (off enwiki) shouldn't be made when we have actual targets for the pages on enwiki. But after having changed (not made) these two, I started investigating this further, and came across first Rybecs improbable creations (and put a note on his talk page), and then those of others, all based on the same list (which I then brought here). Seems (to me) like a rather logical chain of events. Fram (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fram had written:

Perhaps not a problem in theory (though of dubious value), but when you are creating redirects to e.g. Pornography, as most of these were (I also saw one to Zoophilia, and recent ones to Penis and Buttocks (you may notice a pattern here)), you have to be extra careful not to create BLP violations and the like.

The statement is misleading because it was Fram, not I, who redirected طيز and زب to the English articles penis and buttocks. I had made a soft redirect from طيز to the طيز page on the Arabic Wikipedia, and likewise for the other page. Before making the pages, I looked on stats.grok.se, checked Google Translate and viewed pages on the Arabic Wikipedia. I think that counts as being "extra careful"; what further care is needed and how exactly are these pages harmful? If an Arabic speaker doesn't know a common English word for "penis" or "buttocks" (I've checked a few English slang terms such as cock and arse, and there is navigation from them), I think it's fair to assume that the person has little command of the language, and would be better served by the Arabic Wikipedia article.

High traffic to طيز can be seen starting in July 2008, with 1218 requests shown on stats.grok.se [67] The next month there were 10,368 requests [68] and traffic remained high (thousands of requests per month) after that in every month I checked. The pattern for زب is the same. Fram is using the word "improbable" for terms which have received thousands of per month over the course of five years. That's contrary to the usual meaning of the word.

Only 14 minutes elapsed between Fram's first note to me [69] and the AN notice [70]. —rybec 03:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Pages like How to write Simple English articles? 8 hits in June 2013, 7 in July, and then suddenly from August on these start to come in (a few hundreds per month), and suddenly in November they get a few days with over 500 hits, and other days with none[71]. Rybec, the problem is that you failed (which is understandable) and still fail (which I don't get) to see that it is not true that "one of these terms received 24,509 hits on the English Wikipedia in the 90 days before I created it, and the other 28,188. I think directing readers to the Arabic Wikipedia is appropriate when they make a search such as this;" is correct: the number of hits is correct, but these are not from "readers", these are from either bots or seriously bored trolls. It is also very strange that these searches drop to nearly zero after the redirects have been created (redirects are still counted in stats, see e.g. [72], so it's not as if redirects don't show up here). These are not "readers looking for information", these are bots or trolls or software errors, and we shouldn't be blindly catering for them. Fram (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What is meant by "blindly catering"? Besides Andrew West's list, stats.grok.se, and the Wikimedia Foundation's analytics team, what other sources of information ought we consult? Redirects are cheap; must their creation be preceded by extensive research?

When creating the page, I noted in the edit summary that there had been only 7 requests in July, but high traffic from August on. I looked at the June graph too, but didn't want to make the edit summary overly lengthy (there is a limit to how long it can be). Fram has started another discussion about the How to write Simple English articles page, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_2#How_to_write_Simple_English_articles. I mentioned there that the page received high traffic from November 2012 through February 2013. Fram's assertion that traffic to the redirects I've created must be from bots or trolls rather than readers is unconvincing. As I noted above, طيز and زب have received consistently high traffic starting in July 2008. I too noticed the drop in traffic after most of the Arabic redirects were created (a few showed increases). The drop happens the same day the redirect is made. I think it's consistent with censorship. As I pointed out in the RfD discussion, several Arabic-speaking countries conduct Internet censorship of pornography.

The stats.grok.se graph for سكس بنات المدرسه بنات المدرسه (link may have an extra space in it; feel free to correct) shows traffic dropping off after 15 November, when the redirect to pornography was created. I speculate that once requests for سكس بنات المدرسه started returning the Wikipedia page about pornography, rather than an error page, the censors promptly began blocking those requests. Fram wrote "I doubt that there are really suddenly thousands of people looking for سكس بنات المدرسه ("sex girls school") on enwiki" and indeed the traffic for the term picked up gradually beginning with 137 requests in December 2008, 322 the next month, 269 in February 2009, 3616 in June 2009, 23903 in December 2009, 68566 in December 2010, 43319 in December 2011, then declining to 18147 in December 2012, 10774 in September 2013 and 9384 in October 2013. Then this November the redirect was created, and the troll behind all this decided to stop his bot the same day, because trolls want to be obvious? I don't think so. —rybec 03:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rybec, if you can't be bothered to follow normal talk page habits like not replying in the middle of someone's post, proper indentation, and the like, making it hard if not impossible to see who said what in the above thread, then don't be surprised if people don't answer (or don't believe that a lack of answer means that you are right). Anyway, if you truly believe that thousands of people every month come here who fit the description "If an Arabic speaker doesn't know a common English word for "penis" or "buttocks" (I've checked a few English slang terms such as cock and arse, and there is navigation from them), I think it's fair to assume that the person has little command of the language, and would be better served by the Arabic Wikipedia article", and that all of them are only interested in sex (since sex-related Arabic search terms, ranging from the possible to the rather improbable, are the only ones appearing in that list, ever), then it is indeed rather useless to try to convince you of the opposite. Most people in this discussion seem to disagree with you though. I am curious though what you mean when you say "the Wikimedia Foundation's analytics team"? The tool that provides the data that both the redlink list and stats.grok base their results on? If you use three sources (assuming that you have somehow checked the "analytics team" yourself, then maje sure that they are mutually independent; otherwise an error in one will be an error in all three. Fram (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and what is the enigmatic "Only 14 minutes elapsed between Fram's first note to me [29] and the AN notice [30]." supposed to indicate? Should I have waited longer before starting an AN discussion? I didn't start the AN discussion because you hadn't replied, that would have been ridiculous. I explained why I started the AN discussion right from the start, because the problem was a lot larger than I first thought (more articles, more groups of articles, more editors). If you have a problem with that, please tell us what the problem is. If you don't, then perhaps drop the innuendo and refrain from adding such sentences which do nothing to solve the issue. Fram (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

These continue to be created...

People, can you at least wait until the end of this discussion before making more of these redirects? Hideki T\xC5\x8Dj\xC5\x8D was created yesterday (the editor making this, User:Anthony Appleyard, had been notified of this discussion on 29 November). Fram (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Week 3

So this week's list of 1000+ redlink hits has come out; and for the second week in a row, the collection of +m/+n redlinks this week is approximately half the size of last week - a quick look shows it's on the order of about 100. I don't think any unbiased observer would conclude that this is a coincidence, and since the work of putting in these redirects has been paying off in reducing our +m/+n redlink requests from about a million three weeks ago to about a quarter of a million last week, is anyone going to throw a fit if I keep fixing these things? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Counting ones like Adam_Shulman and $domain, there are 173.

I've sent Diederik van Liere an e-mail in the hope that he'll look into the \x, Arabic and foom/foon/foop traffic. —rybec 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rybec for contacting me! I think the best course of action is to open a Bugzilla ticket under the product 'Datasets' and component 'webstatscollector'. That way the Analytics engineers get notified and we have an easier time tracking and discussing this issue. Drdee (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to "throw a fit" as you so neutrally describe it. What is the value in "reducing our incorrect redlink requests"? We should look at the cause of these requests, not simply hide the symptoms by polluting the mainspace with nonsense redirects. Fram (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the page views of Technology internetm; [73]. Do you really believe that suddenly thousands of humans start making this typo, and as suddenly they stop making it as well? This search term would have disappeared from the list of redlinks anyway, whether you had created it or not, unless there is some bot monitoring these and hitting the page until we create the redirect. The solution is to remove these from the list on creation (or if possible to find the bot doing this, it may be an onwiki-operated bot or a malfunctioning script), not to create pointless redirects only to reduce the length of some maintenance list, but without any benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. Fram (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the probability of such mistakes by humans. Take e.g. Batman, viewed nearly a million times the last 90 days[74]. Ending in "n", it is a logical target to get an accidental double "n" at the end of the search string; this has been tried 7 times in the last 90 days. With an extra "m", you get 1 hit for the last 90 days. That's one in a million. But we are to believe that "Technology Internetm" has been typed 55,000 times the last 90 days? Rubbish. Fram (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources of some search spikes

Looking at [75], the first ten (terms which got "no" hits before September, and suddenly thousands a day?) are the same as the categories on e.g. [76] and [77] (left side, under the list of years). Perhaps its time to stop all creations from that list (and simply stop generating the list to avoid the temptation), as there is very little value in it, we are not identifying human searches that fail, but bots and scripts, for 99%; not only the obvious improbable ones but also the at first glance possible ones are not generated by readers, and shouldn't be a driving factor behind our processes. Fram (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now this is the first coherent alternative to the reddit/blog/facebook hypothesis I've yet seen. My question is, if this is coming from bots mangling content on a catholic news site, why are we getting clearly wiki-formatted requests like Black Friday (shopping)m? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) But I claimed "some" search spikes for a reason. I don't know what or who generates the "m" and "n" searches, but I hope you agree that they are not usually typed by humans in our search box or in Google search. They may be caused by bad links somewhere, or bad software at WMF level, or bots/scripts/pageview experiments, or bad rendering of the pageview lists, or ... but the vast majority of redlinks (and now bluelinks) on that list aren't cases of people trying to find a page and not getting there (hence my "Batman" comparison above, which indicates anecdotically the amount of "real" end-m and end-n typos). Fram (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never suggested that they were search terms, nor do I think anyone ever has. The going assumption was that these were links... somewhere, being mangled by that site. The problem we've been trying to ameliorate was always that hundreds of thousands of people per week were following a link to Wikipedia, only to find an incoherent error page instead of the intended content. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But it's extremely unlikely that hundreds of thousands of people were actually following these links from some unknown pages. The figures on the redlink list, compared to the pageviews for the actual pages, suggest that in some cases, all pageviews were supposed to come through that incorrect link. This is extremely unlikely. Fram (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Example:

• Collection Lot (with that capitalization) gets 659,000 hits in September[78]; its target EBay gets only 110,000 hits the same month[79]. Once the redirect is created (In October 2013, based on the most-wanted list), the number of viewers suddenly drops to first one-third and later one-sixth of the previous number, but still this means that supposedly nearly all the traffic to EBay comes through Collection Lot, which is rather unrealistic. Collection Lot is the 55th most popular search term on Wikipedia. Yeah right... Note that Collection lot (with more standard capitalization) is still a redlink, without any problems apparently. Fram (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

These seem as though they should all be deleted. My guess is they are both created by, and largely followed by, bots and automated processes, not by people looking for information. We should be encouraging the source of the error (making the typo) to correct it, rather than helping them perpetuate it. That keeps both our namespaces and our data clean. It may help to maintain a whitelist of "redlinks" from external sources that seem bot-generated; to help sift through the rest for reasonable redirects to create. – SJ + 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps unfortunately, stats.grok.se is case-insensitive. It shows the same statistics for collection lot and ColleCtion LoT. —rybec 07:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Status

So, we have at least four distinct groups of similar problems, with quite a few people arguing for deletion of them (certainly the first three), but not everyone agreeing on this (or not for all groups). We need some resolution on which ones to delete (this can be taken to RfD if that is preferred), and how to prevent further creation of these (assuming that they will indeed be deleted by consensus).

1. Redirects from pages names plus final "m" or "n"
2. Redirects from incorrectly rendered diacritics, accents, or other special characters (the "/x" redirects)
3. Redirects from Arabic sex-related strings
4. Redirects from less obvious search strings which get massive (disproportionate) hits, like Collection Lot, or 18k Gold Watch, viewed more than 500,000 in February[80], or five times the number of hits that the target article Watch received)

Do I take it to RfD or do we have a consensus-gathering here (or are there other preferred solutions to this)? Fram (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The comment from Andrew West dated 18:14, 29 November explains that the "\x" traffic is real and that the zero hits always reported by stats.grok.se is incorrect. The associated redirects should not be deleted unless the Mediawiki software is changed to decode "\x", or unless there's a good reason not to honour the requests. How these redirects might cause a problem has not been explained.

Eight of the Arabic redirects were recently discussed at RfD [81]. I've only created two since, and those were simply soft redirects to the Arabic Wikipedia. What harm there is in directing readers to an Arabic page about the specific Arabic term they searched for has not been explained. These terms have received high traffic since 2008; some appear to have received millions of requests. I explained in the RfD how Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran all censor pornography. For the record, I don't harbor the misconception that Arabic-speaking people "are only interested in sex". Rather, it's a topic of universal interest which is censored in some parts of the world. —rybec 12:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read Andrew Wests comment as if that traffic was in any way real (human) though. How exactly are readers supposed to end up at the "wrong" page? If I type Brandon Ríos or Brandon Rios in the search box, I get the correct result. What do people use to get at the redirect / wrong character instead, en masse? What string do people type to get Malin_\xC3\x85kerman instead of Malin Åkerman? And where do they type it?

The Arabic redirects: again, you are working on the assumption that thousands of Arabic people flock to the English Wikipedia and use Arabic search strings on it because (apparently) the censors don't recognise this when used on an English Wikipedia page, but don't allow it on the Arabic Wikipedia (and then you soft redirect them to the Arabic Wikipedia anyway)? Your explanation is to me utterly unconvincing, and the appearance of rather farfectched search strings on the one hand. and the etreme drop in searches for this string once it has been created, e.g. [82], seem to indicate that there is something else going on.

Do you e.g. really believe that 25,000 people have searched for "Lebanese Community" (Google translate of سكس لبناني ), which seems to be better translated as "Lebanese Sex"? This got 60,000 hits in February 2009[83] and has been receiving thousands of hits every month since, until the redirect was created, then it dropped to near zero... Fram (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence (in my view) that the "\x" redirects are not causeed by humans and/or have no impact on people trying to find an article.

• Guillain–Barré syndrome gets some 25,000 pageviews per month.
  • Guillain\xE2\x80\x93Barr\xC3\xA9 syndrome gets, according to [84], 25,000 page views per week, or 4 times as much as the target article
  • And yet, it is impossible to see when that redirect was created, presumably creating extra traffic to the target article[85]
• IS–LM model gets 1378 hits in the whole of June[86]
  • IS\xE2\x80\x93LM model on the other hand gets more than 6,000 hits per week in June[87], or more than 20 times the hits the target gets
  • But yet again, no increase in hits for the target can be seen when the redirect is created[88], it even drops the next month[89]

I know that the \x hits don't show up in stats.grok, but the increase they bring to their target should surely be visible? Fram (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The "m" and "n" redirects are now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#12 Years a Slave (film)m. Fram (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a "reassess and delete after" temporal template similar to "update after." For highly-used implausible-typo redlinks that are of a type that there is a consensus to create (for the sake of argument, let's say that a consensus develops that Redirects from incorrectly rendered diacritics, accents, or other special characters (the "/x" redirects) are better than redlinks), encourage a human or, where the intended destination is obvious, have a bot put in a WP:SOFTREDIRECT along with a "reassess and delete after" template dated 7-14 days in the future. When the timeout expires, have a bot check the recent page usage and either reset the clock or delete the page. Also, because this is designed to be temporary, there should be a "this is a temporary page" template at the top of the page. Consider making the page {{noindex}}. Why a softredirect rather than a regular one? So that hopefully someone will alert the webmaster of the incoming link to fix their web site, that's why. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-human typo redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone up for a range block?

See the history of my talk page, a blocked user keeps popping up as an IP to challenge the block of one of their many socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Two edits across a ... /14 of address space? ... ?

I agree we need to remind MK of their unwelcomeness, but a /14 rangeblock (if even that small... it's a /12 of Verizon space [90] ) seems excessive.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(following up on my own ...) - an edit filter? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

They haven't come back in a bit, so it may not be necessary at the moment. I am not super involved with this user, all I did was decline an unblock request, but it seems like their topic focus is narrow enough that page protection may be an effective tool if and when they return. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hounding

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,

User:Nikkimaria and I are having a dispute over this article. Next thing I know all the articles that I once created or had a major contribution in are being nominated for speedy deletion or sent for copyright investigation or tagged. I acknowledge that I might have been careless in the past and I am already doing my best to address copyright issues. However, I would like a third person to review her behavior and see if it is against Wiki policies, since in my humble judgement this seems to be becoming a personal fight rather than an act of adminship:

• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]
• [97]
• [98]
• [99]
• [100]
• [101]

--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you've created copyright issues, it is not hounding for other editors to check your other articles. And Nikkimaria is one of the most qualified to do that (I offer as someone who has worked quite a bit with Nikkimaria, and has observed a lot of her copyvio work). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As I've already explained to the OP, I began checking his/her contributions because of the addition of copyrighted text at the article in dispute (not because of any personal fight), and have found multiple instances of copyvio and other copyright problems. I've opened a case at WP:CCI to help address this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

From WP:Wikihounding, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." This is firmly in the realm of correcting related problems on multiple articles. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Nikkimaria has done nothing wrong here. The project has an obligation to go after copyright violations aggressively, deal with them quickly, and prevent the issues from occurring again. On a related note, I would strongly recommend that you work with Nikkimaria and the other people at CCI to resolve this as fast as possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Tagging suspected sockpuppets

I am requesting review, by someone who is more experienced in the matter, of the use of {{IPsock}} and {{Sock}} on the user pages located in the following categories:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 79.180.48.58
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 187.208.150.144
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mbreht

The categories were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 25, but I have closed the discussions as being outside the scope of WP:CFD. In those cases where {{IPsock}} or {{Sock}} are being used appropriately, they will automatically categorize a user page and a category should exist. In those cases where {{IPsock}} or {{Sock}} are being used inappropriately, the user page should be deleted (nearly all of them contain no history other than the addition of the template) and the category will be depopulated automatically.

It is worth noting that the addition of the sock template has been reverted on many of the affected user pages. If the templates belong, they should be restored; if they do not belong, the user pages probably should be deleted to remove the negative history. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping (to prevent archiving). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No Signpost?

Hi,

I noticed that there is no Signpost for the week of 11/27? Is this because it was Thanksgiving week, is the Signpost down, or was this an unusually boring week? Does someone know? Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 02:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The ed17 would be the person to ask. I think it may have something to do with an ongoing deficit of writers, which Thanksgiving couldn't have helped. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC

Have just opened an RFC for a periodic review of the username policy and how it is enforced. Hoping to get input from both UAA regulars and folks with no regular involvement in this area so that a consensus can be formed on some issues that are a bit grey at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream VS Jessica Nigri (and Facebook and what not)

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.

---

OK, so there is this guy named Nightscream who just really stressed me out. A lot. But let me talk about in proper order.

And there's this article Jessica Nigri, which is the top 7,000 most popular articles of English Wikipedia despite being only like 1 year old. During the last week or so, I've worked really hard on it. I expanded the article from some 20 to 166 references (all kinds of sources), and I expanded the content a lot, too. I'm an experienced enough editor to know what I'm doing, and basically everything I was doing was perfectly well (there were some mistakes but I self-corrected myself).

Then suddenly this person comes and, without any prior attempts of discussion or questioning or anything, just deletes literally over half of the sources because of some imaginary rules existing only in Nightscream's head, and spams "citation needed" (not even attempting "better source needed" or anything, just this massive indiscriminate deletion of sources, and some content too). Apparently, Nightscream somehow believes Facebook posts and galleries, as well as her own YouTube videos and YouTube interviews with her, can't be used as sources.

Now, in reality, according to both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Facebook belonging to the subject of the article can be perfectly well used for the information about the subject, as long as [a series of requirements] (everything's OK in this case: there are no exceptional claims, nothing's there about unrelated subjects, etc.). There's also of course no reason to not believe these YouTube interviews, recordings of public appearances, and her own videos she releases. (Note: Most of these galleries and videos/interviews were even used just merely to confirm her appearance as a particular character at a particular event. Yes this is THAT ridicalous.)

Direct links (there's nothing about Facebook there, there are only these sections):

• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

Nightscream refuses to learn the obvious mistake, continously edit wars while threatening me about it, and so there was no other way as to take it to the admins, and so I did. --Niemti (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Btw, Starscream sent me ("WP:SELFPUB supports my position, not yours") to "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm pretty sure Jessica Nigri qualifies as an established expert whose work in the relevant field of Jessica Nigri has been published by reliable third-party publications (as a professional model hired by companies). --Niemti (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Seek dispute resolution. Unless you're prepared to show diffs of bad behavior, rather than diffs of him disagreeing with you, there is nothing for an admin to do here. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Like edit warring? (Yeah, I was also edit warring. But I was not deleting 19 kb of sourced content and references AND WORK to replace them with "citation needed".) --Niemti (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Then report him for edit warring. But that's clearly not what you were aiming to do here, based on all the citations regarding reliable sourcing and WP:SELFPUB up there. (Those would be strange rationales to prove edit warring. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't come here because just some stupid edit war. It's about such fundamentaly wrong and damaging interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, something that might be happening in and to other articles too. And my inability to set him straight about the most obvious thing. (But yes, I'm stressed.) --Niemti (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

However, nightscream is acting in good faith. He seems to sincerely believe that your sources do not meet the letter of WP:RS, and therefore the content should not be included. There is nothing wrong with that line of thinking, and so this is a disagreement that has to be sorted out by consensus rather than administrative sanctions. Just as editors are free to add content within reason, editors are free to delete content within reason - you are no more blameless than Nightscream. I suggest you try to use the article's talk page, try to get other opinions on the content. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's not vandalism, never said so. Okay, so - who is right? (You can go and see these sources, here are some completely random first 5 ones but they're probably rpresentative:ref name=e3>"Jessica Nigri E3 2013 Interview | Gamezone - Yahoo Screen". Screen.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2013-12-02.</ref>)

And so on. Of these, now as I think about it, I might agree the Trader thing is inappropriate because she's pretty much advertising it, so I'd delete it now. But Starscream just deleted everything, just because allegedly everything Facebook and YouTube = Hitler. The other refs cited were for her cosplaying since 2009, growing up in New Zealand, and dressing up in a Gears of War 3 costume at the premiere event (for the latter there's a video of her in the sposnored costume there). Most of the refs were just for the appearances like that (what costume and where, with a video there, instead of "citation needed"). Also one note: before my edits, and my research, the article used to falsely claim she was born in New Zealand (without a reference, but there were only 20 refs, I provided 146 more, all kinds refs, and Starscream even deleted things like this: and replaced it with because why not, MTV wasn't good since the 1990s right?).

Hours and hours and hours of work replaced with an avalanche of "citation needed" just because of someone's mistaken (but fanatical-ish) belief, without any further consultation or attempts to replace anything. --Niemti (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that you think you are right. Nightscream thinks he is right. "Being right" does not exempt you from normal procedures. Insisting that you're right doesn't mean you get to sidestep dispute resolution. Loudly insisting you are right is not a stand-in for consensus. What we have here are two editors who insist they are right, but no one has been demonstrated as committing any behavioral violations. You may be interested to know that administrators do not police content disputes. We don't go around deciding who is right and who is wrong in a dispute, and then block the "wrong" party (in fact, it is often said that administrators themselves are always wrong). The job of an administrator is to keep people from edit warring, vandalizing, libeling, or otherwise being disruptive, so that normal editors (and admins without their admin hats on at the moment) can go about achieving consensus like civil human beings. I just ask that you try and do that. If you're sure you can't get anywhere talking to nightscream, then start an WP:RFC, or visit one of the noticeboards (listed at the top of this page) to see what other editors think. If you are so clearly right, you should have no trouble getting a consensus of editors to back you. There is no rush, by the way. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think conducting an undiscussed mass deletion of references (and some referenced content, too) is ever a normal procedure? It might be happening elsewhere, too. A revert by an admin to the previous state would be nice. Form there, I can discuss these refs on individual basis (but not "all of them", but the real problems where there actually are problems, just like I've just realized something about this particular single post). --Niemti (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I get that you're frustrated, but that doesn't change that AN isn't the place for this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 04:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Guys? WTF was [102] that? It was actually addition of WELL sourced conent (and mostly sources for existing content). And this [103]? This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Please clean it up to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it neutral in tone." What? IT WAS WRITTEN FROM NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. I chose to tone it down and keep it plain, on purpose. And there was a high standard of quality, yes. Once, because not now.

The good version is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Nigri&oldid=584781854 < it's a good version, of a quality article, which was still in progress, before the disruption. It should be restored to this point (minus this Trader thing that I just myself realized), and then worked from there. --Niemti (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Chill the fuck out, Niemti. I've already restored the last pre-war version, as mention in my archival summary of this thread. Refresh the article before throwing a fit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Nyttend

This admin refuses to discuss a dispute over whether the Crittenden Farm article should include the farmhouse's date of construction, that it is listed on the NRHP, and the township that it is located in the article's opening paragraphs. I have asked him to use any forum he wants to solicit outside input after he accused me of having "unclean hands" when I posted the issue to the wp:NRHP noticeboard. He has threatened with strange accusations of vandalism and for adding unsourced content. He has banned me from his talk page but is now stalking my edits. He's removing see alsos to the NRHP county listings of properties I've added. He's removed sourced content on the Moon Lake, Florida article I created. This is very problematic since I'm not even allowed to discuss these issues with him. I believe some intervention is needed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For example here he targets a redirect I made of a person's name to the home named for them. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• WP:DR, third door on your left, take a ticket and wait in line. Thanks Guy (Help!) 19:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, but they don't hand out tickets. Maybe better to use WP:DRN which is the fourth door on the right. No tickets but there may be a small wait.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Candleabracadabra has created dozens of unsourced pages despite warnings from others (see my recent contributions, cleaning them up), so the "strange accusations of vandalism" are my reminder that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to a vandalism warning. He's begun making personal attacks and wonders why I stop attempting to have a logical discussion when his responses are "your arguments are idiotic" — it's impossible to have a logical discussion with someone who answers with ad homines. He violates the speedy deletion policy by removing a speedy deletion tag from a page that he created (see {{uw-speedy1}}). His statements at WT:NRHP portray the situation very inaccurately, ignoring the fact that he's repeatedly attempting to add some information that's not in sources and other information that appeared just one sentence before. He thinks "The community does not have a good reputation in recent years", without any context, is helpful and neutral to the Moon Lake article he noted. He thinks that this page is a reliable source for the addition of information to the Crittenden Farm article. Why again am I the one at fault here? This is definitely a situation for which our unclean hands article is applicable. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Diffs to alleged policy violations? I didn't see anything seriously problematic in Candleabracadabra's recent edits. No need for admin actions here. jni (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, I don't see a problem either. Candleabracadabra creates stubs. That's within policy, and does not require sources. That's why they are called stubs. I do see a problem with issuing templated warnings for creating those articles. The "unsourced" warning is for use when adding the material is likely to be challenged. I don't see anything in any of those articles that are likely to be challenged, and I would suggest that you stop slapping templates on him. GregJackP Boomer! 20:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, did you check my edits to his talk page? I've given him no templates whatsoever. Problematic edits include

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 9 (not precisely diffs, since these are all bad page creations), in which he creates pages with no sources whatsoever, as well as creating the pages with badly unhelpful layouts and leaving them for several days. It's one thing if you make a simple typo and fix it immediately, as he did to a typo that appears at #6, but another thing if you create a pile of pages and abandon them until someone comes along to clean them up, and then you come here to complain about the cleanup because the cleanup guy is "removing see alsos to the NRHP county listings of properties", even though we virtually never include those links and removing them gets them in line with our normal page style, and even though I'm not about to go back and remove them. The "this page" link up above is added in these two edits, the first of which adds unsourced information that's at variance with the sources already in the article. WP:OVERLINK violation. And see the "Crittenden Farm" of his talk page, in which I'm told that "arguing that we shouldn't [my argument] is.. well.. idiotic" and that "I know you won't play fair because we both know your argument is ridiculous". He wonders why I won't bother discussing with him when he comments on the contributor, not on content: you can't make logical arguments or have a reasonable discussion with someone whose responds with ad homines. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You did leave this. While looking at the diffs you provided shows that he needs help with putting images into the pages, it is not a violation of policy to create unsourced pages, so long as they do not deal with a BLP. That is why we have a BLPPROD tag, but not an UNSOURCED-PROD tag. It may be irritating to others, those that tend to clean up those articles, but it is not a violation of policy. Encouraging Candleabracadabra to get a mentor would be a good idea, but they are subject to no sanctions. This same discussion was held several years ago IIRC. GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced stubs might not be a policy violation in their own right, but these articles have all kinds of other issues, and the uncivil comments and general WP:IDHT behavior by Candleabracadabra are getting to be a problem. Candleabracadabra just doesn't seem to be putting a lot of effort into these articles; on top of everything else that's been mentioned, note this post, which is one of the longest notifications I've seen that bot make. This would be OK if he/she was willing to listen to feedback and fix issues, but when he/she's calling other editors jokers and idiotic it makes working with him/her rather difficult. I'm not sure the behavior issues are at the point of requiring sanctions, but they certainly look like they'll be a problem in the future if they're not at least addressed. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced stubs are not a policy violation, and neither is "not putting a lot of effort into articles", nor is getting the formatting wrong when you start a page. From a quick look at a third of those diffs, "all kinds of problems" seems to mean that someone needed to provide Candle with some information about the utility of the "thumb" setting for images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting déjà vu with regard to unsourced stubs of NRHPs. Killiondude (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To the users who have said that creating unsourced stubs is not against policy - how about the verifiability policy? I see nothing in that or WP:STUB that says it's ok to create unsourced stubs. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. WP:BURDEN applies as well. MarnetteD | Talk 03:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." It does not say "All content must have cited sources." Policy has long been that articles must be verifiable, but need not be verified unless contentious or challenged, except for BLPs. If this has been changed, please link to the consensus discussion that changed it. DES ^(talk) 03:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There hasn't been any change, but rather I think it depends how you interpret the words "likely to be challenged". I suppose you could have a stub whose content is so obvious as to not require a citation, but that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The policy is that material must be verifiABLE, not that it must be verifiED by citations currently present in the article.
• BURDEN does not apply unless and until an individual person, using their best editorial judgment (e.g., not mass-adding unref tags to dozens of new articles), decides to specifically challenge the material.
• WP:V contained a link to the definition of WP:LIKELY for several years, but the link seems to have gotten lost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

About your first point, the policy is not just that material must be "verifiABLE". Per DES's quote above, if material has been challenged, or is likely to be challenged, then it must be verified by a citation to a reliable source. That's why I said that it depends on your definition of "likely to be challenged", as there are a variety of viewpoints on this issue. See Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue for a case in point. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"BURDEN does not apply unless and until an individual person, using their best editorial judgment (e.g., not mass-adding unref tags to dozens of new articles)"? Where did this little gem come from, WhatamIdoing? I've never understood why you seem to champion unsourced material, but this is beyond anything you've attempted to state before. It is completely wrong: it would be quite legitimate for any editor that doubted the veracity of any of these unsourced stubs to blank it, citing WP:BURDEN. They could do so to dozens per minute, if they so chose. At that point, any editor that restored the unsourced material without providing an inline citation would be a candidate for blocking.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Blanking is a WP:CHALLENGE. The BURDEN is on you (assuming you want to restore the material) as soon as the material has been challenged. The BURDEN is not on you unless and until someone else has actually challenged the material. Until that moment, your personal belief that the material is not WP:LIKELY to be challenged, and therefore does not require inline sourcing, prevails. And as you know, people coming around and saying, "I challenge every unsourced sentence from here to infinity" or "I challenge every article tagged with the unref template" is not accepted as a valid challenge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden lies solely on the person wishing to restore the material, WhatamIdoing, and your efforts to discard some challenges as "invalid" have never been supported by policy. If someone were to blank large groups of these unsourced stubs, it would be against policy to restore any of the material without providing an in-line citation, even if the person making the restoration felt that insufficient research had been done prior to the blanking.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that you may restore challenged material without providing an inline citation. Did you read what I wrote? "Blanking is a WP:CHALLENGE". If material is removed as a challenge, then you may not restore it without an inline citation. If you go search through WT:V's archives, you'll find that I've repeated this for years.

There are, however, some widely accepted exceptions. Nobody objected to the removal of a fact tag from an unsourced sentence claiming that humans normally possess four fingers and a thumb. The "challenge" was considered invalid because your average four year old knows that this statement is true, and the only possible reasons to add a fact-tag were either severe incompetence or as a joke. Nobody objects even to reverting blanking if it is believed to be vandalism rather than an actual challenge. (And if for some strange reason, you do, then you should convince the community to remove all mention of blanking from WP:Vandalism and turn off the anti-vandalism bots that revert blanking, rather than arguing here.)

What I'm trying to tell you today is that before the material is challenged or blanked, there is no requirement that inline citations be provided (for this kind of non-BLP, non-quotation material). After the challenge is issued, it is required. Before the challenge is issued, it is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The continued production of large numbers of totally unsourced stubs is not a policy violation, but only minimally helpful, & we have the right to expect better. Usually they occur in situations where the sourcing would be fairly obvious to anyone working with the subject--as is the case for NHRP. This is a cooperative project--many eds. are not conveniently able to do full proper sourcing themselves, and need to leave it to other people, but anyone who puts in an article uses information from somewhere. A common origin of these stubs is using a database--but then the ed. can at least cite the database--a raw citation to a database search is not a very good source, but it's a starting point. Another origin is when someone takes or finds a photo of something, and uses it as the base for an article. If the ed. found the photo, they found it somewhere. If they took the photo, the descriptive information has to have come from somewhere--often a marker or plaque at the site. If so, the ed. can at least say that--and possibly include the marker in the photo, For occasionally users, we're glad to get the contributions however ill-formed; but a regular user should figure out how to make their work helpful and appreciated, not a constant subject of criticism. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are we even having this conversation in AN? We have far worse editors than Candle that leave all sorts of rubbish to be mopped here daily. jni (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The reason I brought this here was to find out whether an admin can bully and intimidate an editor away from working on an article. It's ironic that the discussion has veered into issues about improving articles rather than creating stubs. Why would I want to improve articles when this is the kind of harassment I am subjected to when I try to do so?
• The article on Crittenden Farm is not a good one. It includes no dates in the opening paragraphs, it doesn't include the township where the farm is located in the opening paragraphs, and it didn't even note that it was listed on the NRHP up front. Where it does give the date the farm was established (somewhere in the body of the article), the date conflicts with the date of construction of the farmhouse given in the infobox. This is because the farmhous predated the sheepfarmer who came to occupy it, but this isn't covered in the article at all. It's crappy work and I was attempting to get it up to speed and improve it. I was met with hostility and an unwillingness to collaborate.
• It is a beautiful home, the wife of the sheep farmer who came to occupy it is part of the family that the county is named after (sutherland I think it is), and her father is, I think, one of those buried in the cemetery on the property (if I recall correctly). But this isnt' covered well and it's not possible to improve an article when the admin excercising control over it responds by stalking my edits and threatening me with bogus warning about vandalism and personal attacks, when he is the one that hijacked my attempts at dispute resolution at the WP:NRHP page seeking outside input and he is the one engaged in banned behaviors. I think bullying is wrong. Period. Nyttend should shape up.
• I know TLDR, but whatever. Those are the facts.
• I would also like to address some of the other issues raised here. I have improved LOTS of stubby articles sourced only to NRHP information. I have made LOTS of corrections to articles on NRHP subjects (and LOTS of other subjects). We are a collaborative enterprise. *It helps to have a stub to start with and the idea that we are better off with nothing is silly.
• It's a travesty that we have so many redlinks for these beautiful properties, especially ones for which there are photos. I have every intention of continuing to create articles on them. I have also created lots of articles on the architects who designed them and worked to expand the coverage of the locatities where they are located.
• If someone want to have a broader discussion about whether we should create short article on subjects or whether we have to work up more complete articles right off the bat they are welcome to do so in the proper forum, but I think they would arguing against the best interests of the encyclopedia and against its history of collaborative development.
• I write articles by hand so I make lots of mistakes. I have shortcoming. i spell things wrong. I appreciate all those editors who categorize and improve my work. Thank you.
• I prefer thumbnail photos and good opening paragraphs to infoboxes, but I live with the consensus in favor of the oversized boxes that in my opinion overemphasize NRHP status and make the image smaller with less room for other images.
• It's unfortunate that Nyttend seems to have gotten away with his bullying tactics. I don't think that's appropriate behavior for an admin. But I will try to move on to other areas where he isn't active. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

First, although I supported you (Candleabracadabra) on the creation of stub articles, you need to be aware of a couple of things.

• In no way do I think that Nyttend was bullying you.
• You need to work on the size of the photos, because the size that I was seeing in the articles you created were not thumbnails, they were full size.
• You need to look at what was stated by most of the editors here - the articles that you are creating are not very good. You need to work on improving this.
• You need to drop the issue with Nyttend. GregJackP Boomer! 06:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GregJ, if you don't think issuing multiple bogus warnings, threats and accusations, stalking my edits to other pages and expanding the dispute while prohibiting me from contacting him on his talk page, and making personal attacks against me isn't bullying I think you are mistaken.

I didn't thumbnail those photos because my experience had been that photos in articles I created on NRHP subjects were quickly added to infoboxes anyway.

There are lot of articles that aren't very good, but I disagree with you that an article with basic facts is a problem. I think coverage of the basics about a subject is far better than nothing and a decent starting point.

If you wish to argue that we should have nothing instead of articles on these historic properties with the basics from NRHP I am happy to consider your position. I think that's a difficult argument to make. I am confident that the articles I make are a lot better than what was here before their creation (nothing).

The article I was trying to improve is crappy. It doesn't even describe the property's location, name, and history accurately. But I will leave it to you and others to fix it. Have fun. I have already moved on.

Nyttend's bullying has stopped, so at least that's good news. I am sure that if I had stalked his edits, as he did mine, and started reverting his work combatively I would have been bocked. But such is an example of the double standards that operate here. He certainly adds a lot of good photos, so for that we can be thankful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend has now returned to making disruptive edits to antagonize me. He moved the J. R. Carmichael House article into my userspace. He prodded my article on the White-Haines Building. He removed a statement I added to Ruggles Township noting that the Crittenden Farm is located there saying it was unsourced, even though a photo of the farmhouse is in the article's infobox and he knows that it is in fact located in the township. I don't think this kind of diruptive antagonism is appropriate from an admin and I will certainly not be "banned' from his talk page while he's attacking my work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The J. R. Carmichael House move is an interesting one [[104]]. I'm not totally up to speed on policy but in the absence of any warning or discussion it feels really wrong to me that an admin (or, come to think of it, presumably any user) can arbitrarily decide that an article is 'not ready for user space'. Isn't that what WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AFD are for?--Korruski^Talk 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC) - Update: Indeed, a moment's research suggests that this action was in breach of WP:USERFY#NO. --Korruski^Talk 15:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that may be another problem with the NRHP conventions that say use the listing name. That also gives us building articles with 'company' in the name when that is clearly wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't some editors been sanctioned for blindly following the NRHP guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see why the against-policy move has anything to do with NRHP conventions. You may need to explain further!--Korruski^Talk 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I get an assessment of Carnegie Library of Albany. I got a message from Madman bot was I was editing it and tried to modify it enough so that it was sufficiently different from the source. I also added the additional sources that the waymarking source was based on. Nyttend deleted the article. If it is too close to the source can someone just trim the offending bits. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the last revision of the article before its deletion, I don't see an unambiguous copyright violation as Nyttend claims. The first paragraph is independent of the source cited in the deletion rationale, and while the second paragraph mostly paraphrases the source, it doesn't strike me as an especially close paraphrase (and certainly isn't an unambiguous violation). I'll give Nyttend a chance to respond, but I'd be willing to restore that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

MadmanBot flagged it as a copy of http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM8WBT_Carnegie_Library_of_Albany_Albany_GA, which contains links to other pages including http://www.albanygeorgia.biz/attractions/venues.html, cited in Nyttend's G12 deletion summary. There are two issues: the first paragraph may be based on a different source, and copying then rewriting (Candleabracadabra's response to MadmanBot and above) is not allowed. That creates unauthorized derivative works that must be rewritten entirely or deleted outright. (The best pages I could find are WP:Suspected copyright violations/doc and WP:Text Copyright Violations 101#Sample scenarios.) Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Please close discussion WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden

Please disposition WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden which has been open for more than one month. Thanks --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving a page over redirect

Per Talk:Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela#Another idea: Move content to Death of Nelson Mandela would it be possible to move Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela to Death of Nelson Mandela over the current redirect? Thanks for any help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Scott • talk 20:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to undelete all subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I

I have asked for this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_107#All_subpages_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FRobert_I, but my request was archived without anyone taking action (I shouldn't be too surprised, even if this is about a 2006 arbitration case, it is arbitration, so automatically causes most admins to wince and look for something easier to tackle). So I am bring it to a more general forum. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Courtesy_deletion.3F, this was deleted in violation of modern Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking, through this deletion happened several months before courtesy blanking became recognized as part of our policies (the "Robert I" page was deleted on August 11, 2006; del pol from that time doesn't discuss any related concept; "courtesy blanking" had a dedicated page created in September that year, recognized as a policy shortly afterward, was mentioned in del pol in October 2006, with the dedicated page merged there in June 2007).

The deletion of Robert I page remains, as far as I can tell, the only example of any page deleted due to "courtesy"; other arbitration pages, both before (ex. June 2005 "Internodeuser" case) and since, have been occasionally courtesy blanked (never deleted) instead. Nothing suggests this was an exceptional case, different from all the other cases where regular blanking was used instead. The deletion does not appear to be warranted by a policy, neither past nor present, nor was there any type of extraordinary circumstances declared by ArbCom (nothing is visible in the description of the undeleted main "Robert I" arbitration page, it's never censored summary here, nor confirmed by the present arbitrators (see discussion linked above). Any concerns about privacy should and can be resolved simply by blanking, any deletion is an unjustified overreaction. As such, I am asking that we bring this exception back into the fold of our regular deletion policy, by undeleting affected pages (and of course, summarily blanking them per the cited DELPOL:BLANK).

In case anyone needs further rationale for undeletion, consider the following points: 1) no-one will be harmed by the undeletion (the main page for this arbitration case, with all the usernames and verdicts, was undeleted years and properly blanked ago anyway, with no problems arising); 2) those pages were improperly deleted, rules (deletion policy) should be followed; 3) the very concept of "courtesy deletion" sets up a bad precedent, from possible deletion creep to discussion of censorship. In fact, my request to have this undeleted is not because I am a policy freak (I like top think of myself as an IAR-supporter), but because the very concept of deletion based on such policy-unsupported, flimsy and subjective rationale as "courtesy" makes me fearful that this precedent will lead to further abuse of deletion policy, opening way for censorship. I want to ensure this is recognized as a mistake not to be repeated, before someone else stumbles upon this and concludes censorship-friendly "courtesy deletion" was ever a good idea and tries to resurrect it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the deleting admin? (SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) who remains very active). I note that you haven't advised them that you've opened this thread, despite it containing criticisms of the deletion of these pages back in 2007. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the Committee would need to approve of this, given that the pages remain under their jurisdiction. --Rschen7754 07:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've notified SlimVirgin accordingly. And yes, discussion with SlimVirgin should have been undertaken before bringing it here, she's still actively editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Seraphimblade. Piotrus has requested undeletion of these pages in several places in the last couple of weeks, including on 21 November at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee; [105] on 25 November at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion; [106] and on 26 November on my talk page. [107] The 25 November request for undeletion received no response (Piotrus didn't let me know about it) and was archived earlier today by the bot. [108]

All the case pages in question were deleted in 2007 after a complaint that their existence was causing embarrassment. Complaints about related pages (not directly about the pages Piotrus has highlighted) took place over a fairly long period, and involved several admins and others. There were complaints about BLP and privacy violations, and I believe the complaints reached the Foundation. The request to delete these particular pages came to me because I had earlier dealt with one of those related issues.

I informed the ArbCom about the deletion request at the time, before I deleted the pages, in case there were objections. One page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I, was undeleted in 2008 because it was needed for a community-ban discussion, but the other pages (evidence, workshop, etc) remain deleted.

As I said when Piotrus first raised this, I don't really mind either way, and would prefer that others decide whether to undelete. But it would help if Piotrus could explain why he has focused on these pages, and what has changed about the situation that would make undeletion a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys are right, I should have pinged User:SlimVirgin. I did so for the first thread on the Arbitration pages (and I think I raised this on her talk a while ago too, and she declined, through I cannot easily locate her archives to link and verify); I thought it would be sufficient, but you are right, I shouldn't have forgotten about pinging her about this discussion - no slight intended. I hope none of my criticism sounded harsher than intended: back in 2006 or so our policies were still evolving, and SlimVirgin was certainly acting within the bounds of being an admin for that time and place.

Now regarding my interest in the old ArbCom pages: as a Wikipedia researcher, I am looking into the history of ArbCom, and I am in particular interested in voting patters (i.e. public records on Proposed Decision pages). The Robert I page is the only one I've found so far which has been censored out of public availability (so the public is denied the usually public record on which committee members took part in voting on the case, and how they voted, among other things of potential public interest), and this happened without any easily located justification.

Since (correct me if I am wrong) several parties, including SlimVirgin herself above and the several standing members of the committee in the thread I linked in my op (cc User:Rschen7754) stated that they see no problem with restoring those pages, provided they are blanked (as it the long standing policy to limit visibility and search engine indexing of pages with potentially embarassing information, while retaining the transparent nature of our discussions, where the type of revealed information does not require escalation to oversight deletion, which has not been proven the case here), can we just undelete it, blank it, and move on? Undeleting and blanking takes a minute, and we have wasted much more time discussing this simple request, clearly in line with existing policies, for no good reason that at least I can see. All I see so far is an unorthodox decision taken years ago, and the word ArbCom scaring everyone, including modern arbitrators, from taking responsibility and bringing that old decision in line with the modern policy... c'mon people, there's no Pandora Box here, closing admin stated so much herself, undeleting this will not cause anyone to get desysoped, banned or flogged. Nor outed or embarassed, since the main page have been safely restored years ago, to nobody caring much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"the several standing members of the committee in the thread I linked in my op (cc User:Rschen7754) stated that they see no problem with restoring those pages" - that's certainly not how I read Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Courtesy_deletion.3F. --Rschen7754 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Quoting User:SirFozzie: "I have no problem with having the rest of the pages undeleted". User:David Fuchs: I read his comment as abstains, asks if there was any special reason to have the page deleted rather than blanked per regular practice - as others have noted since, no there wasn't. User:Risker: ditto, states that since s/he simply sees no point to it (I think I addressed that sufficiently). Feel free to correct me if I am interpreting those comments wrong (I am echoing the cited editors in case they'd like to do just that), but as far as I am reading them, those ArbCom members who commented on this so far are not objecting to undeletion and are mostly unconcerned about this issue. Therefore, to cite David again, "It seems likely that if the same circumstances happened today the pages would have been courtesy-blanked rather than outright deleted." - let's bring this old incident into consistency with modern policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Conducting some sort of vague "research" into the history of ArbCom seems a pretty poor reason to restore material which was deleted on privacy grounds to me, and such an argument would not be accepted by ethics committees and the like. Blatantly miss-quoting the discussion by the current Arbs hardly strengthens your case, especially as they're actually the decision makers here. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick-D: I find your ad hominem red herring comments about the value of my professional work, and accusations of lying ("Blatantly miss-quoting" without any further detail as to what was misquoted), uncalled for and offensive. My reason for asking for those pages to be undeleted is irrelevant to the merit of this request and my disclosure of my interest was a simple courtesy to the editor who asked; any further discussion of my motivations is distracting to the subject at hand, which is the undeletion request. Similarly, I have already acknowledged in my disclaimer that my interpretation of Arbitrators post may be incorrect, but it was done in good faith, and I provided quotes and rationale for my interpretation; if you disagree with it please provide an explanation of similar level, quoting or referring to a specific part of their post, to prove me wrong; just saying that I am wrong does not make it so. I therefore kindly ask you to refactor your preceding post, in the spirit of WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as I don't believe that discussing my person in the fashion you engaged in here is conductive to the productive discussion (I'd appreciate it if we could focus on discussing the topic of undeletion rather than any specific editor, whether it's me or you). I'd be happy to refactor this very post once you refactor your post as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Agree with Rschen that the arbcom folks who commented, declined to actually per se consent to undeletion. (But, disagree Nick that the Prokonsul's take was blatant anything... the arbs were pretty verbosely-n-carefully saying one thing... and-then-on-the-other-hand saying maybe another... sigh). Unless, that is, given a "good reason" that such action was necessary, and failing that somewhat-vague criterion, either abstained or voted to stick with the status quo. Some reasons immediately spring to mind. Reason #1, transparency transparency transparency. Reason #2, perhaps the Prokonsul will produce something useful from their arbcom-archaeology-research. Reason #3, retroactive policy-consistency is not mandatory but it seems like a reasonable idea. Hope this helps. p.s. Actually it said "embarrassment" grounds, not privacy grounds; I don't know if outing was involved, and in fact, nobody is saying what was involved, which strongly suggests (to my perhaps-bizarre way of thinking at least ;-)   that the deleted stuff cannot be very terrible.

  p.p.s. Since nobody has voiced *objections* besides why-bother-without-a-good-reason, that I have heard... and transparency seems like a primordially-good reason to my mind... I suggest that undeletion followed by page-blanking be implemented, as soon as possible. Because, reason #4, probably all the digital ink spilled on the discussions-whether-to-undelete, will dwarf the digital ink spilled on dissecting the actual-soon-to-be-undeleted-stuff, itself. If there is a reason to keep the stuff deleted, that trumps transparency and the rest, well, then just say that security or legality or verboten content means that the stuff must stay deleted. But enough round-and-round speculation, just undelete it or somebody who knows it is too sensitive step up and *say* it cannot be undeleted because $foo, please-n-thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite correct. Indeed, I did not intend to say Arbitrators have given their consent for that; rather that they have not voiced any clear objection. But it is likely more correct to say, as you do, that they are very non-committal and ambiguous, and one could interpret what (little) they said in any way. Very... politically astute of them. Sigh indeed. I was hoping that a discussion at ANI would either generate more interest, or would quickly result in a consensus, but it does appear that in a few days I'll have to simply file a formal Request for Arbitration Clarification or Amendment. Through I can't help but wonder if that request won't be ignored as well, as everyone will keep avoid taking responsibility and admitting that the deletion was a mistake (unnecessary if good-faithed censorship where regular page blanking was used before and since). Censorship, after all, is a quiet and mostly a victimless crime, letting the sleeping dogs lie is easy. But undeletion, now, is an action, and actions could cause someone to complain... why make the difficult choice where the easy one - to do nothing, quietly endorsing this unjustified violation of deletion policy - worked well for years? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't there something more productive to do? Who cares whether horrible admin abuse occurred seven years ago? I see that at least one editor does care and is on a mission to right great wrongs, but IMHO a plausible reason would need to be produced to justify making people take the time to work out whether there was a good reason for the original action, and whether anything in the deleted material really should remain out of view. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• See this mention of legal threats in the visible part of the Robert 1 case for some hint of what the problem might be. The locus of the dispute was the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost. That article and its talk page have (between them) about 2,000 deleted edits. The deletion may have been done for BLP reasons and to avoid legal trouble for Wikipedia and some individual editors. (Admins can look at the deleted material if they want to convince themselves that the legal issue actually exists). Under these conditions it's hard to be enthusiastic about restoring the information. A Google search for Gregory Lauder-Frost will give you some hint of why he is controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unless it can be showed that there indeed where issues beyond the established courtesy blanking, i.e. office action or oversight-type concerns, which so far nobody has been able to confirm, this remains a good faithed but unnecessary deletion. In fact, I'll note that any speculation that there were such extraordinary circumstances comes from individuals totally unconnected with that case; nobody "in the know" (i.e. the closing admin or the committee members) have stated that any extraordinary circumstances exist (if they did we wouldn't need to speculate about them). Issues that come to arbitration are, by default, controversial; nothing about this case that has been said so far suggests that policy-exceptional deletion, resulting in effect in the only case of secret arbitration proceedings, was required instead of the regular courtesy blanking. Regarding legal threats, no policy supports deletion of arbitration cases in which this issue arises, and having reviewed hundreds of arbitration cases, I could easily point to many other arbitration cases from that timeframe where parties were similarly blocked for legal threats, and nobody deleted (or even blanked) the said pages. Rather than assume there was some sikrit need-to-know reason for deletion, Ockham's Razor suggest it was a simple mistake, which should be rectified by undeletion and blanking, as supported by our policies, which, for the n-th time, do not allow for any "courtesy deletion", not unless such an exception is justified by WMF, the committee or the community, none of which appears to have been the case. Whether it was 2006 or 2013, admins cannot delete arbitration pages because they think "it's a good idea". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• If this deletion happened 6 years ago and (as Piotrus himself emphasizes) it was a unique occurrence, and as nobody has made a peep about it til now, I don't understand what makes Piotrus "fearful that this precedent will lead to further abuse of deletion policy" or why it's suddenly so important that we get the pages back. If Piotrus really just wants the pages for research into voting patterns, that could be handled by someone sending him the contents privately, so undeletion is not required for that purpose. Piotrus has been around forever and surely knows some administrators who can email the pages to him. Despite this, Piotrus has forum-shopped this thing to at least 5 venues so far, wikilawyering about policy and beating drums about "censorship" and mentions plans to file an WP:ARCA in a few days if the current fuss isn't enough. That sounds to me like the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and I have to wonder what it's really about.

  Piotrus, do you already have the pages? Is there something particular in them that you want the rest of us to see, and if yes, can you say what it's about (since you're Mr. Transparency)? Saying we should follow policy for the sake of following policy is IMHO not impressive (WP:BURO). If you really want the pages (a lurching, drooling beast of drama ISTM) back onto the wiki, one idea might be to get them privately and then post them in your userspace. If you're comfortable doing that, maybe that solves the problem from your perspective. If you're uncomfortable, you might consider that the admins who have declined to undelete the pages might feel the same discomfort, so it would be nice to cut them a little slack.

  Piotrus's request seemed reasonable at first, but his increasing insistence and relentless campaigning makes me feel and more like something is amiss.

  Regards, 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see any point to dredging through long-deleted things to find ones whose deletions can be questioned. It sounds like the case pages for this case led to complaints about real-life problems and, especially in the past when revdel and oversight weren't as (or at all) usable, content was often deleted to handle issues like that. When that was done, the reasons for those deletions were unlikely to be presented publicly at the time (what was the point of removing the content from public view if you went on to say "here, I am deleting a page that [name] says is causing people to think he is [thing]"?). I could make a career of going through years of deletion logs and finding-and-restoring page histories that were deleted through "poor man's oversight" instead of being revision deleted or oversighted, or of going through revdel logs to find entries that I think don't meet the policy bar, but that's not a worthwhile use of time. Absent any particular reason for any of that long-deleted content to be restored - and absent any knowledge of the circumstances that caused each of those edits to be deleted - there's no benefit, and quite possibly potential harm, in restoring deleted content because "I think this was unnecessary" or "because I'm curious" or "because I think everyone should be able to see". If Piotrus needs the content of these particular case pages, I imagine a properly explicatory request ("I am researching [exact topic], and have reason to think [case page] contains content relevant to the history of that topic, so I would like to see [case page]'s deleted content" rather than "I'm researching Arbcom, and so I want all Arbcom pages to be publicly viewable") made to Arbcom or to an admin familiar with the case would get the deleted page's content sent to him privately with little fuss. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While I might take mild exception at the translation of governing-body-transparency into the diminutive form of everyone-should-be-able-to-see, the suggestions by Fluffernutter and 50 that the best way forward is for the Prokonsul to request a private copy of the pages, or at least, of the ArbCom votes that were deleted along with the rest of it. From the hints of EdJohnston, who it seems has in fact looked at the pages in question, and found them to be a potentially-legal-defamation-or-similar problem, probably the stuff would be revdel nowadays. Anyways, per WP:IAR it seems clear that Flutternutter is correct, there isn't much point to trying to make our policies unified and consistent, when right on the tin is says we are *against* having any such thing. If any rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it.

  Anyhoo, the ball is in our respected Prokonsul's court -- will you be happy if you get private copies of the pages, so you can complete your research? Because truth be told, I don't care about being able to see the old pages, if it was necessary there are 1400 admins and surely some of them would DTRT if it were really necessary... but that said, I *do* care about your research. I'm planning to rely on it, so therefore would like it to be as correct and complete as possible.

  I agree with your philosophical position, that transparency is inherently the best policy, and that consistency is an essential component of fairness, but one of the main reasons we have ArbCom -- and for that matter a specially restricted checkuser setup -- is to Protect The Names Of The Innocent (And/Or Legally Powerful), because that rule protects wikipedia herself. This is a slippery slope, no doubt. Given that we have to protect the physical server-farm, which in their activity embody wikipedia, though, it seems pragmatic to take EdJohnson's word that the material is reasonably kept from the eyes of the general public, in this case. But feel free to get a second opinion, or a third, from a few admins you know. Maybe even Flutternutter, who I note is an oversighter as well as an admin. Can you peek at (or perhaps you have already peeked at) the pages in question, Flutternutter? Do you agree with EdJohnston that it would not Improve The Encyclopedia, to include morale of contributors, to undelete? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected attempt at outing by Socialmedium

Already at AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please look into and/or advise on procedure concerning a suspected attempt at outing a user via a comment posted by Socialmedium on the Talk Page of the Institute for Learning Wikipedia Article. Here is the text in question; "Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)" N.B. A previous comment began; "Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', " Both comments can be found here [109] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks LetsDoItRight (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Comment This has been going on for a while. --Pete (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC) This complaint has been posted to both AN and AN/I. Here's the discussion at AN/I. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

Hi..

There's been a lot of activity at WP:PUF in the past few days, and there's been concerns expressed that I'm being over zelaous. Would someone uninvolved like to do a review and figure out where I am mis-applying the rules?

I'd really like a second opinion.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG - I'm not sure that you're being overzealous, but I do think that if you put a bit more time and thought into your deletion nominations, you'd be able to better identify problems, and in doing so, would have a higher accuracy rate and place things in better forums. For example, the "Michel Georges Sassine" series (five images you brought to PUF) are, based on the information provided in the image description pages and in the article, from between 1968 and 1970. That makes it impossible for {{PD-Lebanon}} to apply, as that only applies to things older than 50 years old, and these images are 43 to 45 years old. In this case, PUF is the wrong forum, these should have gone straight to FfD, pointing out the timing issue. I think it is important that people like you go through files and check them for licensing issues, but I'd urge you to take your time when you do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Initial query

Would a formalized request to modify procedures to allow clueful non-admins to decline {{unblock}} requests from IPs be a proposal with merit, or a complete non-starer? I would have been prepared to decline this request for example; almost choosing a bold approach—instead asking this question; here. Thank you for considering this query, and I thank in advance those who will move themselves to reply.—John Cline (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not likely going to gain traction. It unfortunately opens a somewhat slippery slope ES&L 11:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If we walk upon Teflon soles, we will slip irrespective of slope; as we too often do, in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a shiny mop here ... (waves in John Cline's general direction). It's very pretty.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with George. The definition of "clueful" is the problem, since we currently have too many procedures, and adding another one (with attendant controversy) is not going to help, especially since the problem could be resolved by reducing the admin shortage. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, I do not think it is a good idea to grant the ability to say no to a user who is not able to respond with a yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. The broader issue (you should have the technical ability to reverse yourself) is the same reason for our decision to enable bureaucrats like Beeblebrox to remove people's admin rights when necessary, as well as granting those rights. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(actually my RFB failed, but I do have other superpowers)By the way though, in this specific type of case, any user is free to add {{ewblock}}, which explains to blocked users why edit warring is not tolerated and what to do instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I was sure you were a bureaucrat. Note that if you find a request with which you agree, you can add something like "Note to reviewing admin: I think this person should be unblocked", or you can ask the blocking admin for an unblock. For a good example of how to support an unblock request, see here: some months after I blocked Captain Assassin!, his conversations with Sportsguy17 convinced Sportsguy that an unblock was appropriate, so he notified me when Assassin had posted a request that looked appropriate. Unfortunately, I can't give you a parallel suggestion for when an unblock seems inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think in principle, this is a good idea, but I agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves that it does leave a slippery slope and also opens up the question of the definiteion of "clueful". Of course, you also have the issue of non-admins can't revoke talk page access in the event of frivolous unblock requests/talk page abuse. I personally think that non-admins can leave a note saying whether or not they support, but we need to make sure that it doesn't degenerate into an election/vote. It really should only occur in cases like that described above by Nyttend. So sadly, I really don't see it happening. Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be listed on WP:PERENNIAL, I think this has been asked before, and turned down. --Rschen7754 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight in these thoughtful replies. The collective weight is powerful—I concede to its reason. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Block of 74.73.143.175

According to this IP's contributions log, 74.73.143.175 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely by TigerShark. Now, as far as I know, IPs are almost never indeffed, and this user seems to have moved on to the address 68.174.175.172 (talk · contribs) in any event. (I still can't decide whether the user is a vandal or just very, very incompetent.) Someone may want to reduce the block duration for the 74. ... IP—though it may not be a good idea to unblock immediately, as the user still may have access to it. I'd have brought this up with TigerShark, but he's been inactive for over a week; I'll notify him of this thread, though. Deor (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

During his brief, but very intensive, reappearance on en-WP TigerShark blocked at least a couple of dozen IPs indefinitely, and refused to change the blocks in spite of several editors/admins telling him that it was against praxis to block IPs indefinitely (the discussions took place on several different talk pages, but one discussion can be found on TigerShark's own talk page). And AFAIK all of those indefinite blocks still remain in place. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef on a dynamic IP that only appeared a month ago is really weird. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef's on suddenly-appearing IP's that are not otherwise disallowed is poor form. That said, nobody is going to WP:IAR if I login to my admin account and modify the block length on those accordingly :-) ES&L 16:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us wait for a day, if there is no response here from TigerShark or other objections I will shorten the block to a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Will you shorten the other indef blocks of IPs that TigerShark made too? There are quite a few of them... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel this would be stalking, which I try to avoid.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not stalking: it's correcting a entire sequence of incorrect administrative actions that the admin themself is refusing to do. Same reason you're allowed to review someone's entire list of contributions and correct whatever is not policy-compliant ES&L 11:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through and unblocked some of them that there was no obvious reason for the block. Will try to look at some of the others later. GB fan 13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann's right eye

See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 40#File:McCann right eye.jpg

This is a request that an uninvolved editor or admin, and someone not normally involved in non-free content review, evaluate the disputed closure (linked above) of a discussion about File:McCann right eye.jpg. It would also help if the closer were someone familiar with the breadth of coverage the disappearance of Madeleine McCann attracted in the UK and Portugal.

The image is a close-up shot of the distinctive mark on Madeleine's right eye, used in this section of the article, which discusses her and the significance of the eye image. We already use a non-free image of Madeleine as the main image (there are no free images of her), but the mark on the eye is not easy to see, so someone uploaded the close-up shot of it in 2007 to use in the section that discusses the eye. It's something that's more appropriate to show than describe.

Werieth removed the image in October, arguing that it violated the non-free content guideline. I believe Werieth's argument is that, because we have an image of Madeleine at the top of the page, we don't need to reproduce a portion of that image to highlight the eye.

Whether the eye is discussed in the article speaks to whether the image is the subject of commentary (see section 4.1.3, point 9, of the guideline), and whether it might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). It may also have a bearing on whether the non-free content policy (as opposed to guideline) is satisfied: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Werieth took the issue to non-free content review (permalink), where it seemed (to me) that there was no consensus to remove it. ТимофейЛееСуда has now closed it as consensus to remove. I asked him to reconsider here, but he stands by the closure, so I'm now requesting an independent review, if anyone's willing. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting here that I posted the above on WP:AN/RFC on 7 December, asking for the review of a closure. Armbrust moved my post here today without letting me know. It's not something I would have brought to WP:AN, particularly as the issue with this particular image was resolved last night with this edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closer's Comment: As I have said many times, any uninvolved administrator is open to review my closure. An uninvolved editor is obviously not enough. One of the other members of the discussion went to SlimVirgin, stating that he did not agree with my closure. SlimVirgin came to my talk page asking for my reconsideration. I thoroughly explained my position and my closure, which obviously was not enough. I stated that any uninvolved administrator could come to me and I would reopen it, if they felt that my closure was done improperly. Diannaa, an uninvolved administrator, has already reviewed my closure on my talk page, something SlimVirgin seems to ignore. SlimVirgin does not agree with the outcome, and she will not listen to solutions that other editors have proposed and many that both sides agree upon. SlimVirgin, being too lazy to read what she requested of me, asked for a summary, but then 32 minutes later brought the discussion here. SlimVirgin requests an editor or administrator who is not familiar with WP:NFCR to review my closure, because she thinks will get what she wants from someone who is not active in dealing with non-free files. It smells like all of this nonsense with my closure on her part is because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I find it sad that an administrator I once looked up to has turned to this. My assumption is that unless an administrator states I have closed this improperly, then SlimVirgin will take the discussion elsewhere until she gets what she wants. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is a non-admin comment, and I became aware of this issue from seeing it posted previously at the noticeboard for closure requests, before it was correctly moved here. Although I'm a non-admin, I've spent a lot of time thinking about WP:NFCC (having written WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions), and, unlike some of the editors who are NFCC regulars, I tend to be sympathetic to content-centered concerns that images help our readers understand text. I've looked at all of the previous discussions.

It seems to me that Timothy and Diannaa are correct that NFCC 3a is, inescapably, the critical factor here. It does not change because most of the discussion was about other things, and there is no getting around it. No matter how you slice it, there is no policy basis for reversing Timothy's close.

But there are plenty of ways to fix the problem, depending on what editors at the page end up preferring. The only requirement is that the image (whether cropped or not) can be used only once on the page. One option is to leave the lead as it is, and use the "generic" image of coloboma, while also placing the external image link, with an explanation of the difference, in the image caption. Another option is to enlarge the image in question, in the lead, and move the time-advanced image of the subject elsewhere on the page. I've read the page and I'm satisfied that all the criteria except 3a are met, and I also think that our readers will understand quite well even after the 3a issue is fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin removed the image and replaced it with an external link to the image (there were already 7 other external links). I think over time those involved editors can find a workable solution where all policies are met and the article is kept in the best light. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't this a DRV issue? Regardless, NFCC#1 and NFCC#3a force any closing administrator's hands. None of the keep arguments surmount them.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason it's not a DRV is that the image file is not deleted, just removed from the page. In other words, the discussion that was closed was at WP:NFCR, not WP:FFD. On the other hand, the file is tagged for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

However, I am worried (given behavior of some involved) that as soon as the image is deleted for being an orphan, a DRV will be opened, regardless of the points made by ТимофейЛееСуда and Diannaa and the comments above. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a very reasonable next step if it gets deleted. That's what DRV is for. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The closure has now been reviewed by at least 2 different admins as proper. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

DRV still remains the appropriate venue for deletion appeals. I suspect this wouldn't have a chance, but it's a reasonable step. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I have assumed good faith and looked at this superficially and I'm ambivalent to either way. Looking strictly at our policies there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that prohibits us from claiming fair use in this case and use the image legally. However, you gotta ask yourself: is it extremely important that this image is shown? Then you see that an image of Madeleine is already shown at the very top where you can see her eye's mark. You should also notice that the matter here is NOT the image, but the fact that the image has been widely published. I strongly believe that what we should convey visually on the article is not the image per se, but the fact that the image has been widely distributed. So, instead of showing the image, take a picture of the image being hung around somewhere, upload it freely to Wikipedia, and place that photo on the article. Or, take a photo of a newspaper showing the picture and the article where such image is shown in order to demonstrate to our readers that the image has been widely distributed. I don't like the "external image" option and I tend to agree with using WP:FAIRUSE in this particular use as it's perfectly legal to do so, but I believe the solution I propose is much better. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a very workable solution, to show a photo of a hung flier (as to keep de minimus); I argued the same thing could be done for the second non-free image of Trayvon Martin which was claimed to be used for a lot of protest signs, and I was able to locate several free images of that photo on signs at protests, allowing a free image showing that photo to be used. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I also like that solution. Actually, my reading of the page is that what is most noteworthy is the way in which posters showing the girl's whole face (not just her eye) were so widely distributed, so an image illustrating the display of such a poster makes excellent sense on content grounds. By the way, the English Wikipedia does not accept "fair use", as legally defined, as a reason to use material here; we require a stricter standard than the law requires. (See: WP:ITSFAIRUSE.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(please assume good faith when reading this reply) I don't want this to be derailed into policy making, but WP:ITSFAIRUSE is an essay, not a policy. Furthermore, WP:FIVEPILLARS states very clearly that "Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first." This user has "strived to find free alternatives" but has not been able to find one. Therefore, in this particular case, WP:FAIRUSE is more than fine. You need to understand that per WP:IAR our policies are just that, policies. The only thing applicable in this case are our Terms of Use which state that "You do not violate copyright or other laws." In this particular case, per WP:IAR and our Terms of Use (1) this user is not violating any laws, (2) she has faithfully attempted to find a free version, (3) she has failed to find a free version, and (4) our policies are "preventing her from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Therefore, WP:FAIRUSE is justified both legally and through our own policies. However, as I have stated above I believe there is a better solution that would satisfy both sides. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, no worries. I do understand that you said all of this in good faith, and I think we agree about the content end product. I was just saying that because I thought you might not be familiar with those things about fair use. And I'm pretty sure that WP:ITSFAIRUSE and WP:FAIRUSE are saying the same thing here. (WP:FAIRUSE is a redirect to WP:NFCC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear to me this is a case IAR should apply to. But given the claims of those on the "non-free is to be avoided at all costs" side, I don't see how that could be workable. Did anyone ask for the picture of the eye to be released under a free license? Do we know who owns the copyright (I'm assuming the parents). Hobit (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • About "sides", I became interested in non-free content policy because I disagree with "non-free is to be avoided at all costs", but I've come to be convinced that NFCC is very important if we are sincere about being a "free encyclopedia". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you explain why that's important? We aren't an entirely free encyclopedia. Nor is there any significant advantage to much of anyone if we were as far as I can tell--and certainly not our readers. Could you explain why it's important to be "free as in freedom" rather than just "free as in beer"? I've only seen downsides to this--causing us to not cover material in the most complete way possible. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Because that's the m:mission of the Foundation? To create free-as-in-speech material that can be used and reused by anyone in the world? "Free as in beer" only gets one so far. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
        • (I'd just been trying to remove my comment as off topic and move to TF's page). Sure, I agree it's the mission. But A) we aren't actually doing that and B) we are hurting our readers while only getting part way there (which serves no purpose). We are neither fish nor fowl. If we disallowed all non-free content I'd see your point. But picking a really narrow set of things we allow serves no real purpose. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
          • We aren't fish? Speak for yourself! What you ask is a perennial question, but the answer, to date, has always been that the consensus is for what NFCC says. And it isn't going to change here at AN (or at my talk). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(please assume good faith when reading this reply) I fear this will turn into a policy/interpretative debate but nowhere in the WMF's mission does it state we cannot use copyrighted material. It only states that the Foundation will "make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity." Using WP:FAIRUSE material does not hinder that mission since the content will be made available free of charge (since it's fairly used) and since it will be kept. Furthermore, the Foundation is very laisez-faire and its mission simply states that it shall "[provide] the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of [Wikipedia] which [serves its] mission." Once again, WP:FAIRUSE doesn't hinder that mission since the Foundation merely provides the infrastructure and human organization but maintains a very laisez faire approach with its projects. Let me give you an example from real life: this case has been brought in court many times due to universites: universities, "make and keep useful information (books)" free of charge at their own libraries. Students pick these books freely and photocopy them to use these photocopies for their studies. This is a typical WP:FAIRUSE case in court. I don't remember the exact case or law, but basically, as long as the inherit purpose of the university is not making these books freely available for the sole purpose of students photocopying them, the university is protected under fair use. In this case, the Foundation would not be making this picture "freely available for the purpose of people copying it", it will instead make the picture freely available (although it is copyrighted) so that it can "advance knowledge" and since such use is "socially useful". Fair use is very complicated and WP:IANAL but it's not prohibited on Wikipedia. However, like I said above, I think there is a better solution and we should avoid to derail this post into a WP:FAIRUSE discussion. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Without too far getting off track of the ANI issue, m:Resolution:Licensing policy is the Foundation's statement on non-free material, which at its core says: "Such EDPs must be minimal." (EDP = exception doctorine policy ==NFC for en.wiki). Using two images when one would do is the type of thing written into that policy. (And keep in mind: the end reuse may have issues with their country's restrictions on fair use, like in Germany, so if they wanted to reuse content they would have to scrub anything that wasn't from Commons, for example). --MASEM (t) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Broader issue

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 wouldn't have brought this here, but now that someone else has, there is the broader issue of Werieth – supported by Masem and Stefan2 – removing fair-use issues wherever possible. (A previous Madeleine McCann removal was discussed here, and he tried a few times to remove Scotland Yard e-fits from the same article.)

Werieth relies on a strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Non-free content, a guideline that is not clearly written, making strict interpretations (or, indeed, any interpretation) highly subjective. He often removes images, reverts repeatedly to keep them out, then labels them as unused fair use so that they're deleted. It has caused a lot of frustration. I'm pinging some of the people who've expressed concern about it, or have been involved in warning or blocking: Stfg, Modernist, Andy Dingley, Bbb23, Johnuniq, Tom Reedy, Bus stop.

Several people (not necessarily anyone I've pinged) believe Werieth is Betacommand, a banned user; latest example of that claim here. Werieth says he isn't. I'm not familiar with Betacommand, so I don't know how to look for similarities. There is some information here. If no one has requested a checkuser, it might be a good idea to do that.

Regardless of the Betacommand issue, I think we need to have a discussion about (what I would call) extreme interpretations of the non-free content guideline. The issue is not whether free content is better; I think we all agree that it is, so that's a red herring. The issue is how to handle fair-use issues while minimizing disruption for content creators. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's just 'bot-delete all NFC today and have done with it. Policy change, sort it out, done. If consensus is to do this (it's a free choice, we could do this), then I'm happy with it.

If NFCR consensus for particular images is that they should be deleted, per interpretation of our NFC policy, then I'm OK with that too.

What I'm not happy with is Werieth's behaviour of edit-warring to bully other editors that it's his way or nothing. We are supposed to be against edit-warring, as it's disruptive to the basic processes of WP. We can't even have a consensus about NFC unless we have a workable editing environment, free from this sort of abuse. In the short term it is even more important to us to stop Werieth edit-warring than it is to resolve some of the NFC interpretations. We've had these files around for a long time already, it's not an instant-decision issue (as Werieth insists) to instantly delete anything with the slightest doubt, as we might do (but usually don't) for some BLP issues. If NFC really is an "End of WP unless we remove these heinous breaches", then we should simply blank all NFC content (which we can do quickly and automatically).

As to Werieth being Betacommand's sock, then I'm far from certain of this (and I'm broadly unfamiliar with both), but the more closely I look, the more I hear quacking. The date of Werieth's appearance fits, the bursts of non-deletion editing or anodyne uploads from NASA look more like camouflage than regular contribution. The English language skills are very similar. Both of them finding an obscure article of Iranian cinema like Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami is really starting to stretch credibility. Most of all though, I just don't care. Werieth's editing is equally destructive and equally dismissive of other editors. Should either of them be editing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wereith will say he found that article the same way Beta did - by running the toolserver report that list the articles with the highest number of non-free images. On the face of it, an acceptable answer, which would no doubt fool most people. But not when you consider all the other similarities between the two accounts, and the fact that there must be less than 10 editors here that even know how to run that report, let alone really want to (and I would not be the least bit surprised if the tool was actually written by Beta in the first place). The question is not should they be editing regardless, the question is, does the time and effort that it took to eventually ban Beta really need to be repeated, if he is him? Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether Werieth is Beta, I very much doubt that, given that we've seen examples of both users at their "outburst" moments. They have the same goal, to reduce non-free, but they definitely appear to be different people.

That said, and I brought this up at the latest time Werieth was warned and subsequently blocked at the edit war noticeboard, is that there are only a few objective NFCC removals that can be called as exemptions to 3RR, and what Werieth often does are not those types of exemptions. He gets one "free" bold removal of non-free that fails #3a or #8 or any of the other subjective ones, under BRD, but if that's reverted the only next steps are talk page discussion, opening up a case at NFCR, or FFD nominations. Which he frequently does not, and that's a problem. And while I fully support his efforts, I've warned him several times that editing warning like that is not acceptable NRC behavior. And I expect this to hold true for anyone enforcing NFC. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if we could agree that he should only remove an image once from an article – any kind of image, whether the 3RR-exempt ones or anything else – and thereafter must open a discussion if he's reverted, that would at least reduce some of time spent dealing with this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion about who is who, but I would think the place to examine that would be WP:SPI. And as for the uncomfortable détante between editors who care about content and those who feel strongly about NFCC, I've been there, and I'll put in a shameless plug for WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions. That's really about how to make that détante more peaceful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

:Can Masem please explain what differences there are between Wereith outbursts and Betacommand ones? A few hours ago, Wereith called Andy Dingley, a user who registered in 2007, an incompetent dick. He has also called people idiots, ignorant, stupid, etc, all for committing the crime of not interpreting policy the way he does (or in the case of admins, not helping him by blocking them when they don't). That is all very reminiscent of Betacommand in his outburst mode. Wereith registered in June 2012, and has only been seriously editing for a year. Yet he claimed to have "far far" better understanding of NFCC than Andy. How? When did he acquire this knowledge? Such claims were also very like Betacommand. All of you, ask yourselves how much you knew about anything on Wikipedia after just a year - and whether or not you would have been running around professing to know more about anything than any user that's been here 6 years. Wereith knows about NFCC because he is Betacommand - nobody but nobody registers on Wikipedia for the first time, and starts making NFCC enforcement edits like this as their 8th edit. Their 8th edit! Ignoring repeated warnings from people like Masem that his behaviour was unacceptable were also very like Betacommand. I'm surprised he doesn't remember that - it seems to me that Wereith has taken the same amount of notice of him that Betacommand ever did - namely, absolutely none. When Wereith was given a short block recently for edit warring - his reaction was not only similar to Betacommand - it was exactly the same. Just like Betacommand, once blocked, he didn't appeal, he didn't complain, he didn't do anything - he just disappeared until the block expired, then when it did, he just resumed editing as if nothing had happened, or rather, resumed edit warring. Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't point you to any easy evidence. Yes, both are NFC enforcers to an extreme beyond norm. But Beta tended to gnome more, using scripts and the like to handle things (even when sanctioned against using them), while Werieth appears more hands on. Werieth's "fits" also are more coherent than then Beta went off the handle. I remind people that AGF is still important here, but I also can defend Werieth for his misconduct in NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wereith does gnoming work, like using a scripts to fill out references. Just like Beta used to. Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably a more pressing SPI would be one for User:Arnhem 96, a brand new account which is clearly very familiar with a lot of quite old NFCC history. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would that be "more pressing"? Which articles is Arnhem 96 damaging? Where is he edit-warring? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So you don't think we should look askance at a brand new account with a large amount of knowledge of the Betacommand/NFCC issues, Andy? Especially as I can think of at least two of Betacommand's most fervent critics who are permabanned? Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy was simply asking you that issue is more pressing. I'm surprised you missed the question, I mean, it's right there..... Arnhem 96 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@BlackKite - I will thank you to not put words into my mouth.

It is certainly possible that Arnhem 96 is a sock. If that concerns you, then you know where SPI is. I see no damage coming from the account, so I have no reason to file such an SPI. So far I've held off SPI for Werieth because I don't see the evidence as sufficiently convincing and also because I see the objective evidence of their behaviour (whoever they are) to be anyway heading for the same block as Betacommand, even if they're a different identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Andy. Arnhem 96 definitely is a sock - or, at the very least, using an alternate account to evade scrutiny. I was merely pointing out that such an account muddying the waters here with their own petty vendettas is probably not helping sensible discussion of this issue along at all. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Slim, I highly advise that you move this to WP:RFCC. Posting this under your fair use request will derail the subject and be more harmful than useful. Furthermore, since you merely want a discussion for this user's behavior, you should go to WP:RFCC instead. WP:AN is more for when you are requesting a ban or something similar. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is long overdue. Werieth's behaviour does reflect Beta's more and more. His self appointed interpretation of policy and guidelines is in violation of the letter and spirit of this encyclopedia. His penchant for removing fair use images from articles and then orphaning and deleting them verges on outrage. Recently he tried to delete every fair use image of Arthur Dove's work that was available; this faulty interpretation has got to stop. I agree with Slim - discussions on talk pages must take place before any more removals...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

His interpretation is not 100% wrong, but it's also not 100% right. (in the case of Arthur Dove, where there are just as many free examples of his work as non-free, and none of the non-free are subject of discussion, but there's a means to resolve that). The issue, at its core, is him exceeding 1RR (much less 3RR) on NFC which are invalid subject to interpretation. He also does removals, and gets into revert wars that are clearly within policy where no interpretation is needed and thus considered exemptions to 3RR issues, but this is not all of his edits. That needs to stop, regardless of how "right" he believes he is on the subjective NFCC matters. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Masen I have for the most part made a point of taking cases to NFCR when there can be questions about the removal raised and I have been reverted, (I have made that change since the last ANEW incident). The most recent case that Andy is threatening to get me blocked for is about as clear a violation as one can get List of people from Bradford. Where an IP has made not communications beyond default revert summaries. Werieth (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am specifically talking about this case which you were blocked for. That reverting is unacceptable. (And even if an IP reverted without comment, and it was a subjective determination, I wouldn't be re-reverting that change). --MASEM (t) 23:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That was the point from which I stated I had altered my approach to file more NFCR's. Werieth (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, I think if you would agree to remove an image from an article only once, and thereafter to start a discussion, preferably on the talk page, or at the non-free page, that would reduce a lot of the frustration that people are feeling. It's the reverting and the attempts to have images deleted as unused that cause some of the problems. That's not the only problem (the length of discussions that people get drawn into is another issue, and the frequency of them), but if the reverting would stop that would be something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have already stated that I have recently changed my approach. I have been filing NFCR's when the case isnt blatantly a failure of NFCC, or the files are debatable. In those cases I will limit my reverts. The case of orphaned images isnt as simple as you make it out to be. I am not targeting just the files that I remove, I actually am making sweeps through all orphaned non-free media and tagging them. There used to be a bot that does it, but its inactive. I often see the backlog over 1000, and my contributions might be 50 or so. I really dont think this is to correct venue to discuss the finer details and workings of CSD F5 taggings. 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, thanks for the response. What I'd suggest going forward is that, if you see a fair-use image (of the non-urgent kind) where the issue is that there isn't enough discussion of it in the article, add a note to the talk page suggesting that something be added to make it guideline-compliant. Then wait a few weeks so that the editors on the page don't feel they have to jump to attention. (Imagine the chaos and hard feeling we'd cause if we were to go through the encyclopaedia systematically removing everything that wasn't sourced or neutral.) Then, if there has been no progress in a few weeks, remove the image once, and if it's restored, take it to the non-free review page. That would be my advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin If the case was just one image (which I really dont focus on, instead I look at articles with 5+ non-free files, or particular files that are used across a large number of articles), I wouldnt have an issue with that. However in most of the cases where I remove files its a case of excess. In those cases letting it sit for a few weeks, is not a good idea. In the cases where its not clear I tend to file a NFCR. Werieth (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, though: why is it not a good idea? Given that violating NFCC is not the same as violating the law, what's the hurry? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Masem; for what its worth - I've added specific text and references regarding all the fair use Dove images used in the article. Werieth has no business removing those images. He should have politely asked for added text on the talk page...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Modernist Im sorry if my removals offended you, but I cant see justification for those files, so a simple request for more text on the talk page would have been meaningless. We dont need to display all of their works, we already had 5 free images, and I could have seen justification for 1-2 additional but not all 5, especially in the gallery format that they where in when I removed them. Werieth (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth Appreciated. It's better to voice our disagreements and try to settle them; then to engage in an edit war. I think we all agree to that...Modernist (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Modernist I would have discussed the issue if you had provided any kind of rationale in the edit summary for your revert (Reverted edits by Werieth (talk) to last version by Modernist) Gives me zero ground to start a discussion, nor does it provide any reasoning for the removals at all except (from my perspective) WP:ILIKEIT which in respect to NFCC holds exactly as much wait as a box full of air. However due to the lack of communication I think things got sideways for no real reason. Werieth (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth At the time I was engaged in re-editing and re-formatting the article - although I should have been more clear in my edit summary and I will keep that in mind...Modernist (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I wish people would stop talking about the Betacommand aspect here; I have no idea whether it's true or not, but let's let SPI sort that out. The edit-warring/misinterpretation of policy/whatever you want to call it is the problem that should be discussed here (and I agree that it is a problem, and have discussed it with Werieth in the past). A one-removal restriction on non-free images sounds like a good way to fix that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I want to voice my support for this discussion, echoing Modernist and SlimVirgin. I only encountered Wereith for the first time quite recently and have no opinion or knowledge of any possible sock activity. I do know however, that Wereith is a difficult-to-work-with editor, has no capacity to be civil, routinely threatens other editors when there is a disagreement, has an attitude toward guidelines and policy that indicates a single-mindedness and lack of flexibility, with an insistence on a superiority of knowledge of guidelines while clearly not understanding those very guidelines. A larger discussion needs to take place around fair use, particularly in art-related articles, but I'm sure it's a problem elsewhere as well. However, as this editor has been blocked previously, there must be some way to enforce civility and his continued edit-warring so the rest of us can get down to actually editing. freshacconci talk to me 23:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Your third sentence is pretty much the executive summary you would get if you aggregated the closing statements of every ANI thread, every warning from an admin, every block rationale, and most of the arbcom case conclusions, concerning Betacommand. Just don't ask Black Kite if that's the case, he won't er... remember. Even though he was there throughout, defending Beta to the bitter end. Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'd just say that what SlimVirgin did here, pinging all the editors she can find who have had disagreements with Werieth, is effectively canvassing a discussion. That tool isn't designed to be used to instigate witch-hunts, you know. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's quite the fair point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yet you got here awfully fast BK. Chatting with a certain someone on IRC? Arnhem 96 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• IRC? No, it appears to be more direct and at User_talk:Black_Kite.
  Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I don't use IRC. And that talkpage comment post-dates my posting above. WP:AN, of course, is on my watchlist. More interestingly, who are you, Arnhem 96? Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I like to think of myself as an anonymous whistle blower. I like to think of myself as someone who tries to do the right thing for Wikipedia, such as highlighting when a banned user returns to resume the very same activities that got them banned. I seek to save Wikipedia spending the same amount of time, effort and drama to get to that same conclusion again, given that it was pretty much shown at the time that said user was a complete recidivist, incapable of changing no matter what was tried. I try to explain in great detail to the administrators here what my concerns are based on, in the hope they might show me mercy for my own infraction of not revealing my true identity. I like to think of myself as the sort of person who can see the big picture, someone who doesn't simply enforce a rule for its own sake. How about you Black Kite? Does that strike a chord with how you see yourself? If not, well, if you're more interested in who I am than what I have to say or why, even though the only harm I'm doing if I'm not correct is tarring one anonymous Wikipedia account with the wiki-crimes of another anonymous account, both of which you seem to always be very quick and very loud in defending, I leave it to your peers to ponder on why that is. Arnhem 96 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's all very noble, but it has one major flaw; that your comments would hold a lot more weight if they came from your normal account, thus avoiding the impression that you have something to hide (the two that would spring to mind are a blocked account or one that has had a dispute with Werieth). More to the point, if Werieth is indeed Betacommand, then you certainly won't find any objections from me if they are blocked as a sock; but as I said above, you are merely muddying the waters and drawing the discussion to yourself rather than the point you are trying to make. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of course you wouldn't object if they were blocked as a sock - if that happens, then it means the accusation is true. Not even you would dare to overturn that. But you will try your hardest to ensure that the accusations don't get heard - or is there another reason why Wereith chose you, out of all the admins on this site, to complain to about me? You were Betacommand's go to admin back in the day, so how about you reassure us that this relationship you seem to have with Werieth is entirely innocent, that there is nothing about it that would remind anyone of how Betacommand used to interact with you. The fact is, the only person muddying the waters here is you - that is the only purpose behind these insinuations that I have something to hide, or something to gain, from getting Wereith blocked. The only weight that a truly impartial admin would assign to my allegation is whether or not they stacked up to scrutiny - you've got Wereith's contribution history, you've got Betacommand's too (not that you need it, you probably know his history as well as anyone). The quickest way to discredit me, is not to try and fool people into thinking that the strength of an allegation like this can ever be measured by simply looking at the reputation of the accuser, it is to blow a hole in my arguments. You, of all people here, are the best equipped to do that. Yet, here we are, waiting, waiting for you to say anything here that actually relates to the actual issue, the one which, as Andy correctly identified, is the most pressing here. Don't you want to clear this up, one way or the other? You know how pointless, how ineffective, how utterly draining and time consuming it was when people tried all sorts of restrictions and special measures as a way to deal with Beta's unique problems. In that context, don't you feel the least bit guilty about not doing your utmost to reassure SlimVirgin with your unique knowledge of Beta that she is not dealing with Betacommand returned? You could torpedo my arguments right now. Why don't you? Would you feel guilty at all if it turns out he is Beta, and all you did here was attack the messenger, while SlimVirgin et al embarked on the same long long journey, one which we both know doesn't end until a long long way down the road. Arnhem 96 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of the "canvassed" users and the admin who most recently blocked Werieth, what I see, having reviewed the wall of text above, is a consensus for a 1RR rule applied to Wereith on image removal. I would suggest that a formal topic ban. I'm not sure how long the ban should be, perhaps indefinite with an appeal permitted in the usual six months. If someone thinks something will change in this area sooner, a different duration might be appropriate.--Bbb2t3 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have seen several nasty non-free content criteria disputes and they are a big problem, and a central discussion is warranted. Collaboration is required to ensure a good outcome, namely that NFCC is followed and that content builders are not driven away. Some users lack the interest or the ability to collaborate, and such users should not be acting as police to steamroll good editors. The behavior of Werieth at Titus Andronicus was extremely inappropriate, regardless of whether their opinion on the need to remove certain images was correct. After removing certain images six times in 24 hours, Werieth posted an explanation on Talk:Titus Andronicus. The explanation was: Do not re-add or I will take this to ANI and request that the user is blocked. If you want the removals reviewed file a request at WP:NFCR until that is closed the files say[stay] out. (diff). The editors maintaining that article are among Wikipedia's best, and it is unacceptable for anyone to approach the issue in such a bullying fashion. The community needs to stop NFCC enforcers until they can find a better approach. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet what happened at Titus Andronicus after this 6RR? The other editors were threatened with blocks, the articles was protected in Werieth's favoured state and his edit-warring and clear 3RR breach were ignored. The problem is that edit-warring works. The more insistent and persistent an editor is, the more likely they are to get their way. Editors with any respect for our supposed policies are disadvantaged and penalised. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, we get to the crux of the problem: editors that don't wish to follow WP:NFCC decrying its contents and attempting to get the people that enforce it blocked. Contrary to SlimVirgin's assertions, it's one of our clearest policies and well-suited to strict interpretation. The problem is that an extremely high percentage of our non-free content doesn't meet the criteria. The solution to that is not to relax the criteria, it's to simplify the deletion process so that these disputes do not become so protracted.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to stop good content builders from being driven away. If NFCC is so important, a better procedure should be found. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You, Kww, are one of the worst admins I've seen for bullying and the abuse of an admin's privilege to see your own POV enforced in content disputes. Your block just now of user:Arnhem 96 does nothing to dilute that view. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, Might I remind you about WP:NPA? The account that was blocked was an obvious sock. Werieth (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? freshacconci talk to me 02:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

[110] is so much more interesting. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, I've reverted your blanking of Arnhem 96's posts here. You will note the deliberate edit summary, "Revert vandalism".

You might also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand Andy Dingley (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, striking the comments of a blocked sock is fairly common practice, in some discussions the comments are completely removed not just struck out. Werieth (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"I reverted you edits," I think you mean "your" edits. Same as your description of me as "incompantant" [111]. Are you also using Betacommand's old dictionary? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it you are not familiar with the term typo? Its fairly easy to miss the you/your typo given that spell checking will not catch it. Werieth (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, that's the problem, it's the guideline, Wikipedia:Non-free content, and that images that are the subject of commentary in articles (see the guideline, 4.1.3, points 8 and 9) are challenged regardless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The viewing of images is a mainstay of art history classes. Books on art topics commonly contain reproductions of works of art. A person for instance, just to give an example for illustration, may not know what Pointillism is. But after seeing many examples of such paintings, they will probably have no doubt about what "pointillism" is. This is of course educational and right in line with the purpose of this encyclopedia. This sort of phenomenon applies to almost all areas of the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of course they are challenged regardless, SlimVirgin. Articles have to simultaneously pass all ten criteria. Passing 4.13, points 8 and 9 doesn't have anything to do passing most of WP:NFCC. 4.13 point 8 even explicitly calls out the requirement to pass all ten points of WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kww, NFCC is so "clear" and subject to your "strict interpretation" that WP:3RRNO#3RR_exemptions#5, the one that Werieth regularly relies upon to justify his edit-warring, goes out of its way to stress that it only applies to "content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." (emphasis is original). If it was so "clear", then there would be no need for such a qualification that it is only a get-out-of-jail-free card in unquestionable cases, not as a general approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with SV and others that we need to revise out interpretation of the guideline. There is reasonably firm consensus for the basic rule, at least to the extent that there is consensus that it is required by the WMF, but I do not think there is currently consensus for the way we apply it. In deciding what the "minimal" use of NFC should be, some factors are or ought to be more important than others--the content factors rather than the technical ones. (assuming of course there is no problem with the actual legality, but as I think everyone recognizes, there usually isn;t going to be any as long as we accept that we work under US fair use law--the position that we are more restrictive than applicable law permits is our own, and we can change it. We could, for example, change it in some fields--just as we have a special rule of images ofp eople, we could have a special rule interpretation for fine art-related articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The Foundation requires us to be more restrictive than US fair use law, it is not just NFCC; this is because we are supposed to be promoting the development and use of free content. When people complain "but this is getting in the way of developing the content the way we're used to in other works", well, unfortunately, that's not going to be something the Foundation is going to change; we learn to adapt. Too many people try to write WP as the end-all, be-all of any work, when we are supposed to be the tip of the iceberg for any practical coverage on a subject, and our non-free policy reflects that we use just enough NFC to help the reader understand the topic and no more. In particular for visual arts, we need much more discretion than the visual arts projects feel they need (History of Painting has run afowl of NFCC for many years and several attempts and suggestions to fix without losing any of the NFC (moving it to other articles) have been rebuffed). And then when NFC is enforced (not exactly in the manner Werieth does, but in following what is done in other parts of the encyclopedia) those editors turn to attack the NFC enforcers instead of trying to find a solution that works (which does not always require the removal of all NFC but more strategic uses of it). But there's no way we can fall back to US Fair Use law standards, as that's too loose for the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Let's assume that NFCC is wonderful. Nevertheless, it is still reasonable to question the methods that self-appointed enforcers employ. I mention "self-appointed" because there would be much less angst if the WMF were to have staff adjudicate NFCC issues—the current arrangements make enforcers appear as automatons following arbitrary rules that many good content builders have never encountered. Good editors understand WP:BLP without explanation—of course an encyclopedic article should be neutral, and should not use undue material to attack anything, particularly a living person. By contrast, WP:NFCC needs gentle explanation—not "I'm enforcing policy and you will do it my way". Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Johnuniq If you want a simple guide to NFCC it is actually far simpler than most people make it out to be. Keep in mind this will not address every case but is a very good rule of thumb for most cases. Use non-free material only where absolutely needed by the text, keep the resolution as low as possible to achieve your goal, use as few non-free files as possible, and where possible substitute free media. Werieth (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• 'When people complain "but this is getting in the way of developing the content... '

No-one is complaining that. People are complaining that Werieth is edit-warring to impose his minority position. He does this over other editors because they're "stupid dicks" who can't understand NFC policy. He does it over the consensus of editors at GA reviews who see NFC as justified in carefully judged situations. Most of all, he does it over our own policy that says, "Don't edit-war over NFC because it's recognised that much of it is subtle, subjective and requires discussion at the NFCR board provided for that purpose instead".

No-one is complaining that your removals of NFC are similar: many editors might not like your removals, or even personally agree with them, but I think there's broad recognition that you're acting per policy at NFCR and considering each issue appropriately. Werieth though only has one answer, "delete everything", and he uses egregious edit-warring and abuse to enforce it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting me, I did not call you a stupid dick, I asked a question about your motivation, due to you repeatedly showing a complete lack of understanding WP:NFCC. At this point you are stalking my edits and harassing me. As has been said several time there are exceptions to 3RR for NFCC enforcement. Our policy actually makes a clear exception for it. My position isnt a minority it is backed by discussion and policy. Yes a lot of people may not like policy, so change the policy, dont shoot the messenger. You say all I do is delete all non-free, that is blatantly false. In most cases I do leave some non-free media in place. I have also uploaded and added to articles over 200 non-free files myself. Werieth (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, are you a complete dipshit or just an illiterate retard? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please notice the identical construction to your comment, " ... are you stupid or just being a DICK?", which you claim is merely a question, and not an epithet. In fact, the only question is the false dichotomy you have constructed, "You are either stupid or you are a dick--which is it?", which is indeed what you claim it is not. This raises an honest question from me: are you a native English speaker? If so, you are arguing in bad faith, because no native English speaker would claim that what you said was merely a question unless they were being disingenuous.

And for the record, I don't think very much of your editorial style at all. A good part of the skill set needed to edit Wikipedia is being able to play well with others. I understand that some editors with an agenda might pick you for their team as a point man, a "useful idiot" as I believe Lenin termed it, but I doubt that very many other teams would welcome your particular style no matter what your degree of expertise might be. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is extremely offensive on several points. The term retard is an extremely derogatory term, and should never be used. In my initial comment I could have replaced WP:DICK with WP:POINT. I was asking a legitimate question of whether or not Andy actually understood WP:NFCC, given his past comments it was every questionable. If in fact he did understand policy was he just stalking my edits to be disruptive and make a point. Without the associated context and history that comment can be taken several ways. You comment however rates as one of the most offensive personal attacks I have seen on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• (Clears throat.) Wow, the issues here sure have broadened! Please let me suggest that if Werieth agrees, with respect to images, to abide by 1RR and BRD, then maybe we could wrap this discussion up and move on? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Werieth currently refuses to abide by 3RR. Kww unblocks him after clear breaches of 3RR. How would a change from ignoring 3RR to ignoring 1RR really change matters?

The question here still remains: Is one editor's disputed and undiscussed opinion of an NFC issue within 3RRNO or is it not? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Andy, Werieth has been unblocked once by Kww (or anyone else for that matter), and it was nine months ago, which does not a pattern make. And the difference is that, right now, Werieth (et al.) doesn't think their actions are out of policy, whereas many of the rest of us do, and that's the fundamental issue here. If they were given a 1RR with regard to images, then they unquestionably know that it would be out of policy, and I'd imagine that they would respect it. We don't need to throw all AGF out the window, here; Werieth is still trying to do right by Wikipedia according to their lights. Their lights are just a little off in this case, and I think a 1RR with respect to removing images would correct that to everyone's satisfaction. (And hey, if not, the blocks become easy.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper I would prefer to keep it informal, and if you take a look at what I have said above, I am basically limiting myself to 1R then NFCR except in cases where the action is beyond question correct, if the issue is subjective Ill file a NFCR. Werieth (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, don't we all. ;) But if that's your commitment, then I suppose that's good enough for me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

TFD backlog

It looks like nowadays only (or at least mostly) Plastikspork is closing WP:TFD discussions, but now, that he became inactive two weeks ago, a huge backlog is building up. Help from the bearers of the mop is needed there. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am dead busy till Wednesday, but if there is no progress till then will try to help. For whatever reason TFD really generates the worst which Wikipedians have, for example last time I closed a TFD my closure was reverted by a non-admin within minutes because they did not like the outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

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'd like to ask that my topic-ban on religion be lifted, since I've respected it and had no conflicts of any kind for many moons. Minorview (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please provide links here to the prior discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall where all this happened, but can't get a clear picture of when or where it was. Links, indeed, will help a lot. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As user Humanpublic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - AN Archive 246, SPI/Minorview/Archive, a bunch of AN / ANI issues (but all appear at least several months old). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Humanpublic. I now remember all. I will re-review the archives though. Thanks George. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Will you disclose all of your sockpuppets (see [112])?
2. 3 months ago when you last requested your topic ban be lifted, some concerns were raised (see [113]) - will you address them now? Most importantly, then, and now, that you had so few edits since the ban that you had not demonstrated your behavior had changed nor that your editing was collaborative.
3. This edit ([114]), from just two weeks ago, seems to be skirting dangerously close to your religious topic ban (the seemingly never-ending BC vs BCE dispute) - see WP:BCE, BTW, to answer your question there. Will you avoid WP:ERA and related disputes henceforth?

Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to ping Minorview. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Done here: User_talk:Minorview#December 2013 (Diff: [115]). I had assumed Minorview (Minorview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) had this page watchlisted, as he had opened the section. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the past concern is that you want me to address. The link you gave is to my response to someone accusing me of trolling just because I appealed. I didn't understand the comment then; I'm not appealing because I'm a troll. I'm asking for the ban to be lifted because I'd like it lifted. I don't have any sockpuppets. As for BC, BCE, I really don't see how that can be called involvement in a dispute. I just asked for the guidelines and expressed an opinion, once in Talk, and made no article edit, and followed the link when it was provided. I didn't know it is a "never-ending dispute." I didn't know anything about it. I'm sorry if it is considered an edit related to religion, that didn't even cross my mind when I asked about it. Minorview (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You say "I don't have any sockpuppets", but you clearly gloated about socking in the past. Please disclose the names of all of your sockpuppets and alternate accounts from throughout your editing history, not just at this moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting this topic ban. I suspect the AN thread speaks for itself, but this user has repeatedly demonstrated that they are here with an anti-religion agenda. They've done little else since the topic ban was enacted, so there is no good track record of harmonious editing in other topic areas. The long history of disruption, noticeboard threads, and socking leaves little doubt what they would get up to if the topic ban was lifted. --Laser brain (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Come back after six months of productive work so a plausible case can be presented that there is an understanding of Wikipedia's purpose. The NOTHERE behavior demonstrated last time was extreme, and there would need to be an expectation that some benefit to the encyclopedia would result from removing the ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - this is Humanpublic. That account is indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry. Why in holy hell is this account not blocked either? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Because we indefinitely block the socks, and sanction the master, who gets indefinitely blocked only if the socking persists. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Given the other abusive behaviours by this user, I still think they should've been indeffed, as sockpuppetry was only one of a multitude of sins, for want of a better term. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting of topic ban. Also, using a sockpuppet takes advantage of Wikipedia policies as well by evading scrutiny. In my view, the sockpuppet should be blocked indefinitely. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of topic ban, given that Minorview has yet to reveal all his sockpuppets. I agree with Sjones23 and others that editor should be indef blocked, at least until he comes clean about the full extent of his past policy violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Editor was *not* indef blocked despite known SP connections when those earlier incidents came about; now is not the time to revisit them in that manner. Edits since August are innocuous to helpful, but only a handful. I do not support lifting the topic ban at this time, but I encourage Minorview to keep editing in a productive manner and let the community see you're being constructive. You are doing fine in the last several months, since the brief April incident. Keep doing that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have to oppose again. Hardly any article space edits since the appeal in August [116]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Unexplained hike in article viewing statistics

Hello. Please see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco

Is this triple hike over and above the longstanding traditional baseline something Wikipedia would investigate as some sort of potential computer-generated phenomenon? There is no such hike in the San Francisco Bay Area article ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco_Bay_Area ). Please also peruse the long-term viewer stats before the past 90 days, about 8,000 per day on average. The current bump appears downright bizarre and implausible.

Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is currently colder and snowier in SF than it is where I live in South-central Alaska. I suspect that is the source of the interest, although it is also worth noting that they are hosting the Super Bowl pretty soon as well. Looks like I was mistaken about that last bit, but the freakish weather seems like the most likely explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm neither a mediawiki expert nor a pageview one, but it seems likely that this is due to this bug (discussed on the Wikimedia-l mailing list recently). To quote the linked email: "Around August 2013 a site change caused internal housekeeping messages to be counted as page views by our webstatscollector software. As the patch was rolled out progressively, every month more bogus page views were added, up to several billion per month in November." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that bug didn't increase the pageview stats for any particular article, it's just that "views" for non-articles such as Special:CentralAutoLogin and the Autonym font were included in the total-site statistics. Anomie⚔ 22:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So, is there is a possibility of a computer-generated phenomenon that you guys would look into? The trend is like nothing I've ever seen on any city article in Wikipedia - a brand new and unprecedented three-fold jump in views which is then sustained. Current events happen in cities all the time, but they don't profoundly alter the viewer statistics in this fashion. Castncoot (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the weather can't possibly account for the 90 day traffic growth. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. The cold snap is about a week old, and as for snow, Beeblebrox, there hasn't been a flake. Our "rainy season" has been unusually dry so far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Image Status Review..

We need a non PUF/FFD process for image reviewing I think..

So that things like this one :- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:HMS_Greyhound_%281900%29_underway_at_Portland.jpg

can be looked at.

This is a PD-US-1923 abroad image.

It also likely (given the subject and sourcing) to have potentialy been taken officially (i.e PD BritishGov).

PUF or FFD seems like the wrong process, and {{Wrong-license}} is typically used for non-free content misifentified as free.

It would be appreciated if you the admins could draft a proposal for a 'License Status Review' process which could replace {{wrong-license}} but still allow for images like the above mentioned image (which no-one is saying is non-free for Wikipedia purposes) to be determined by collective expertise, instead of having to rely on someone pulling the file out of the dipsuted cateogry by chance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these come up at WP:NFCR though normally when the question of non-free may really be free. Still, since that page deals with a lot of copyright issues, it makes sense to go there for such discussions. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This was more about images that were 'free' in the US (but possibly were not elsewhere), which means as such they aren't considered Non-free here. (No NFUR required).WP:NFCR I thought dealt with stuff that should have NFUR's or which was wrongly identified as having such.

The other concern was that currently the template I mention, just categorises meaning unless someone de-backlogs the category, stuff gets left for a while, which is not good practice.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it would be better to reform PUF into a place where we discuss potentially wrong copyright tags? PUF already handles one case of potentially wrong copyright tags, and the other cases (listed as free but for the wrong reason, or free image listed as unfree) both need similar knowledge about copyright. I think that it becomes a bit messy at WP:NFCR when there are discussions about NFCC violatons mixed with "unfree image might be free" discussions, so I would prefer to move the latter ones somewhere else. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I do agree with revamping an existing board is better than a new one. And PUF does seem like a good place since we're not usually talking about (immediately) the deletion of an image but whether the license is correct. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal : Rename PUF to FFR (Media) File for review, and update the templates accordingly?

Something like this, the reworked templates allowing for additional reasoning.

• {{PUF}} -> "File for Review" with a reason code 1 "A contributor is challangeing the categorisation of the file as free"
• -> "File for review" with reason code 2 "A contributor is challangeing the categorisation of this image as non-free.
• {{NFUR not needed}} -> "File for review" with reason code 3 "A contributor is challangeing the need for an NFUR to be provided for this image. (Not for challangeing a Non-free categrorisation - See reason 1)
• {{Wrong License}} -> "File for review" with reason code 4 "A contributor is challangeing the license used on this image, but not nessacrily it free/unfree status."
• ? -> "File for review" with reason code 5 "A Contributer is requesting a license confirmation, or dating information."
• ? -> "File for review" with reason code 6 "A contributor is requesting clarification of FOP/derived work status for the file..

Any other common situations? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

{{NFUR not needed}} means that no FUR is needed. This doesn't need any discussion, just a conversion of the FUR into {{Information}}. Also, do not change the {{wrong license}} template into something else unless people actually list it for discussion. In some cases, it may be appropriate to keep {{wrong license}} for a long time until more information becomes available, but it is not a good idea to list those files for discussion whilst that information is unavailable.

Why is this discussion at WP:AN in the first place? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It was here because I felt Admins were the best people to ask about this gievn they'd had be handling the deletions needed if any. If this disscssion can transfer somewhere more appropriate feel free to move it. I've got no objection to retention of existing templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

(I hope I have the right place) - Recently, I found a page titled Multi-Role Support Vessel. This article discusses an acquisition program by the Indian Navy for a new type of Amphibious support vessel. This article is not about a specific type or class of vessel, such as the San Antonio class, or Joint High Speed Vessel, but rather, it is about a process by a specific navy to select a new vessel type to upgrade and expand their fleet (similar to, for example, the CG(X) program by the US Navy). The article has since been moved to Indian Navy Multi-Role Support Vessel programme. However, it is reasonable to anticipate that in the near future, there may be an article created for the "Multi-Role Support Vessel" (I may even do it myself). Can we free up this page from the redirect, for that use? Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You can free it up by simply editing the redirect and writing the article. Of course if you do that, you should look at 'what links here' so that the incoming links are directed to the correct article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 20:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You might want to make that page a disambiguation page, and then create your article at a more specific title to avoid confusion. Also, you might want to utilize hatnotes if approrpiate, also to avoid confusion. Rgrds. --64.85.214.91 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot

• The bot User:HBC AIV helperbot7 which updates Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, has not run since 18:09, 22 September 2013. What has happened here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that bot just removes blocked accounts; I think User:Legobot actually reports the names to UAA? Rgrds. --64.85.214.91 (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Legobot has done nothing to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot since 22:38, 21 September 2013. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've pinged Lego to comment here. (On another note, how did nobody notice this for a month and a half?!) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why, my bot isn't responsible for that page. Legoktm (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I follow, up to September, User:Legobot was adding the bot-reported users to that page. Do you know why it stopped, and/or who is supposed to have taken over the task? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• The statement "up to September" isn't accurate, my bot posted names there for not even a day. It should be pretty obvious which bot is responsible for those pages. I tried re-working his code but gave up since it was a mess. Legoktm (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I stand very corrected; my apologies. User:DeltaQuad hasn't answered previous queries as to why this task was abandoned. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't had much time to fiddle back around with Labs, which I've had to transfer over to. I'll try and get it solved this weekend after my exams or sooner. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please help

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

---

There's an overzealous editor (who may or may not be the subject of the article) removing everything from a talk page and attacking anyone who calls him out for it here: Talk:Eliot Higgins Not sure if this is the appropriate place for this but assistance from more experienced eds is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.148.106 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop edit-warring, or you will probably both be blocked. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the editor concerned of the existence of this thread, as you failed to do so (despite the big orange box that came up when you made your edit). - David Biddulph (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup; I saw that and as said editor has been deleting anything regarding Higgins that is not positive, I presumed he would erase this before anyone else had a chance to see it if he were to be notified (his actions suggest a very touchy ego and quickness to remove things rather than discuss). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.148.106 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are using the talk page as a sounding board to air your conspiracy theory that Higgins works for the CIA and is promoting war with Syria. There is no source that says that. Talk pages are not forums for discussing original ideas. You are spreading libel and its a violation of what talk pages are for and BLP. -- GreenC 19:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations can be removed. The editor is making unsourced "rumors" that are libelous and attempting to use the talk page as a sounding board to spread rumors that are unsourced. The editor is also accusing me of sock puppetry. It's very disruptive. I've put in a page request though it may take some hours. -- GreenC 18:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If he had erased the warning it would have shown that he had read it, but you deliberately decided not to send the warning. He and you have both clearly violated the WP:3RR limit (despite the warning above); an administrator can decide how to deal with that. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Five reverts at the moment from each side, and continuing.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

3RR and BLP allows for the removal of libelous content. What would you have me do, let the information stay unchallenged? This editor has produced no sourced despite being given 3 days to provide sources. When no sources were produced the libelous accusations were removed. --GreenC 19:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Green Cardamom was absolutely correct to remove the unfounded allegations from the talk page; I have blocked the IP as it is currently being used solely to cast aspersions on a BLP subject based solely on the IPs own opinion.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Ahnoneemoos

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.

---

Good morning, I am here to present what seems like a prolonged pattern of disruptive editing by the aforementioned user. I recently returned from an extended hiatus and Ahnoneemoos began editing full time during that time period, meaning that my scope may be somewhat limited. However, I quickly noticed that every time that his name popped on one of my watchlisted articles, he was involved in some sort of controversy. Without even reviewing his contributions, I discovered three instances where he randomly replied to other users quite abrasively, undoing edits over and over in order to establish his revision. Unlike your average user, he is clearly astute when it comes to gaming the system, he immediately avoids pursuing an honest consensus by citing a rather elaborate laundry list of guidelines, policies or even essays, depending on which one works to his advantage. Ahnoneemoos mixes these with comments that continuously treat other users like rookies, patronizing them or otherwise pointing to his "years editing Wikipedia". Of course, if he simply stopped edit warring this would not be that disruptive, after all, he is not the first to go around 'speaking' in a passive aggressive manner.

However, this form of "diplomatic edit warring" seems to become less "diplomatic" when Ahnoneemoos edits articles that are related to Puerto Rican politics and economics. In these he becomes really pushy; not only establishing his version, but also seeking to "punish" his adversaries. I first noticed this in Mayors in Puerto Rico, where he was involved in at least two wars during a single year. After SilkTork employed his judgement as an admin to issue a short block, Annonemous completely avoided ironing their differences directly, jumping the gun (and several other mediation venues) and going directly to WP:ARBCOM (SilkTork is an ArbCom member) seeking "justice" (i.e. directly requesting the desysoping of SilkTork) and citing that his block was a "witch hunt", despite the fact that the admin had been uninvolved in the original dispute and had no notable reason to "persecute" him.

Then there's Alejandro García Padilla. This is the one article where he insists in posting and re-posting his revision to the point of pushing the boundaries of political propaganda. There he has been involved in a one-sided and ongoing (albeit slow moving) content dispute for a month. The first one was against Jmundo over Ahnoneemoos' addition of content sourced by primary sources; he did not seem particularly interested in actually trying to reach a consensus with Jmundo (the brief exchange in the talk page supports that) or any one in WP:PUR for that matter, after a couple of comments he was already opening what seems like an premature case at DR/N (something that he also did after a very brief conflict at Ingrid Víla Biaggi). Since both had stopped warring and the issue had migrated to the talk page, it should have been given the chance to actually unfold there before editing resumed... But no. Two days later Ahnoneemoos was once again warring over the same content, this time with a second user, Neljack, who as a native of New Zealand was likely as neutral on Puerto Rican politics/economics as they come. Sysop Mark Arsten protected the page to give the matter some time to cool off, but only a few hours after the protection expired, Ahnoneemoos was back at it adding a reworded (and to his credit, this time with an actual third-party reference) version of his original point, which was still in contention.

By simply browsing his edit history at Mayoralty in Puerto Rico, Alejandro García Padilla and Ingrid Vila Biaggi, I could easily tell one thing: Ahnoneemoos has a problem with the idea that he "owns" these pages and likes to prove his point to the extent of down right gaming the system when any attempt at consensus appears; extending the conflict by creating a web of bureaucracy supported by his own interpretation of the policies/guidelines/etc. that he cites. This is clearly filibustering, since he continues to edit war in the in-between, guaranteeing that while he indefinitely extends the conflict the version that is featured is his. To me, the method that he uses (taking the conflict to some noticeboard without letting it flow naturally in order to form a consensus) besides filibustering also seems like a diffuse form/pattern of harassment, since unlike traditional harassment as defined in the policy, he actually targets all the users that he deems "adversaries" instead of a single person or group, and tries to intimidate them into dropping the issue. He is also no stranger to this policy.

For the purpose of disclosure, I must admit that my first encounter with him wasn't friendly. However, back then I was not aware that he seems to enjoy confrontation, since politics are rarely within the scope of my edits. Being a long-term member of WP:PUR I offered my opinion, without expecting such an aggressive reply. Of course, since he has been unilaterally speaking on behalf of all WP:PUR without actually asking for a consensus, I guess that harsh response was product of felling entitled to dispose which standards are used in all PR-related articles. Briefly going on a tangent, while this "misrepresentation of consensus" was inoffensive in these cases, I'm actually concerned that he may choose to speak on behalf of all of us in a move that may be controversial.

I must clarify that my purpose here is not to ask for his head, bringing the matter before the community should not be interpreted as a request for a block. Not all of his edits are disruptive and losing him entirely might actually hurt WP:PUR. But given the fact that Ahnoneemoos admits that he is a veteran user and that he clearly has decent knowledge of most policies and guidelines, something must be done. Curiously, he even unilaterally reworded WP:CON is a manner that seems to implies that despite constantly attempting to filibuster consensus with policies and guidelines, he knows quite well that "our policies are descriptive rather than authoritative" (i.e. that they can't be exploited to prove your point or to harass other users). Based on this fact and the other concerns presented, I believe that the possibility of imposing a topic ban on subjects that fall under politics and economics would be an adequate measure to ensure that Ahnoneemoos can focus on constructive edits within other areas. This, of course, should also apply to the other accounts that he admittedly controls. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have alerted Ahnoneemoos to this discussion, which you should have done yourself.

The issues you raise look very serious. I see that Ahnoneemoos is very aggressive in talk page discussions, and that the problem of ownership is high. A topic ban for Puerto Rico topics would effectively ban the user completely, as this area is almost totally the area of interest. I would like to hear from the user to see if there is a suggestion for self control. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My bad, I thought that we had a bot that generally issued these alerts. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

On that note, I don't think that the ban should be total, only politics and economics, which appear to be the triggers for his hostility. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Binksternet, can you point me to the diffs of the aggressive talkpage behavior you noticed Ahnoneemoos displaying? And can you further describe aggressive? Are you saying that they attack people? Are you saying they insult people? Are you saying they do $something_specific_here? I agree they don't beat around the bush, but I see that as a positive. Anyhoo, it is hard for Ahnoneemoos to respond to your request that they suggest some ways to improve their own self-control on article talkpages, when you don't specifically give examples of behavior that you consider very-aggressively-out-of-control. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are within policy. Some are closed in favor of my arguments, others are not. An example of this would be Victoria Leigh Soto in which I was very active and very vocal, and in which my arguments was used when closing the discussion. This is why I'm so verbal and adamant: I believe in my arguments. Sometimes I can convince people, sometimes I cannot. An example in which I was not able to convince others would be Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico which was ultimately closed without taking into consideration my arguments (the case was elevated to ARBCOM for other reasons). I left the article as is and have not touched ever since. How can I be considered aggressive? Don't confuse passion with aggressiveness. Being vocal and adamant is not against policy. This is how Wikipedia works; this is how ALL human organizations work as we all have differing points of views and opinions. I have never EVER EVER harassed anyone and I challenge you to prove that I have done so. It seems that this post is merely a huge bias of what you believe to be "disruptive editing", "harassing", "filibustering", or whatever else you want to insult me with. Discussions are discussions. You need to be prepared for them as this is a wiki edited by humans. I do not WP:OWN a single article, but I do watch those related to Puerto Rico as many people use them in favor of their agenda rather than remain neutral. All my edits are neutral and are or can be easily referenced. I challenge you to post anything here that I have contributed that cannot be referenced. If there is one, we can simply remove it. We all have our own special topics, Puerto Rico happens to be mine. Regarding my tenure, I will post below on my other account which I don't use and which I can't merge into this one as such function was disable. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is me, User:Ahnoneemoos, posting from my old account which I don't use and which contains edit history from other accounts such as User:JohnCrawford and User:Maio (which were merged into User:Joseph Dwayne). —Joseph | Talk 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of how this user is the one causing trouble: I replied to him normally and he accused me of "patronizing" him. So, it's all about perspective. This guy seems to be very problematic and is not the first time he does something like this. Another example would be this post on User:Marine 69-71's talk page where he accuses me of being a puppeteer and being 'rude'. Notice how I just ignored the post even though it was an insult and a personal attack to my person. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I want you all to notice how this user states that our "first" encounter (was not our first, we have interacted through a different account of mine) was "not friendly" (according to him) and he links to the whole discussion. But his very first reply was the one that was confrontational and where he attempts to claim he "knows policies" because he was "an admin back in my active days": [117] So, who is being confrontational, feeling entitled, and has an attachment to articles? I was actually the one that reminded him that WP:PUR does not have an inherence over articles, yet he is the one going on a tirade on how this and that has happened "after he became inactive". This person seems to believe that he is entitled to some sort of veterancy, respect, or bow before him attitude. If you ask me, this person is too attached to stuff and doesn't understand that Wikipedia evolves and changes over time. For example, he recently reverted back a design on a page because it was "custom-made for the project page years ago", even though we removed it because it displays incorrectly in mobile devices. So, who here is actually incapable of letting it go, believes he owns stuff, and believes that is entitled to reverence? I could care less to be honest, I just have an opinion and express it in discussions. Sometimes people show me I'm wrong (User:Marine 69-71 has corrected me MANY times throughout the years) but many times the counterarguments presented are just weak and absurd. Is that what we are supposed to do now? To back off as soon as someone presents a point of view different than ours? This person seems to be focused on my discussions, but, has he focused on my many many MANY edits where I help people and contribute stuff to Wikipedia? Discussions are discussions man. You will have differing views, just because someone has a different point of view does not mean it is "aggressive", "filibustering", or that he is failing WP:OWN. Whenever the community decides against my argument I just let things go. But during the discussion process? Of course I'm gonna be vocal and of course I'm gonna be passionate, these articles are important to Puerto Rico and its people. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can’t distinguish "passion" from "bitting" sure is a problem. I am not the only one to take notice of the way that you reply (see here, here and here and the entire discussion here (specially the part when these exact concerns are brought before him and he avoids any attempt at consensus by simply saying "Please do not contact me directly ever again...") for a small sample). In my first encounter with this account, I was pointing towards a problem within the entire project (the decline of standards within the articles in scope) and you randomly responded by saying that "WP:PUR is just a bunch of people" (i.e. completely disregarding my argument in favor of reorganizing the project and rethinking the standards) and basically told me to do it by myself. You asked for an opinion in the project's talk page and then reply dismissively to the opinion that is offered, that is rude. As a matter of fact, being dismissive is by definition rude, so I can't see how noting that could be interpreted as an insult. A matter of perspective? Perhaps. But, for a "problematic" user I sure have been involved in few edit wars over the course of seven years, something that you seem to do on a rather frequent basis. For the record, I have never undone any of Ahnoneemoos' edits nor been actively involved in a content dispute with him. Based on that, I'm not exactly sure how I would fell "entitled" towards these articles.

Furthermore, if you had "interacted" with me trough another account then perhaps you should have been more polite, since that would mean that you likely knew how I avoid active politics and was only trying to help. For those that don't know the scope of my edits, most of the ones within mainspace are to articles about historical figures/defunct organizations and other non-contentious matters (military actions, sports, arts, etc.). I do not feel "entitled to some sort of veterancy, respect", I simply expect the same respect that I grant to a complete stranger to be reciprocated. On that note, perhaps calling you a puppeteer was not the best term, however, neither is your presentation of the matter, "editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so", the note was more of a heads up to Tony than anything else. Bringing attention to potentially disruptive users among members of the WikiProjects is a common and old fashioned practice. However, I don't frequently try to create characterizations of other users, something that as seen in most of the arguments both here and in those linked, you do quite often. "Entitled veteran", "rogue admin", et al. are worst that the term puppeteer given that they go personal, I ignore them, but others may (and clearly have) interpreted them as personal attacks. But, alas, the main issue is not as simple as abrasive language. You should have WP:AGF and weighted your responses, not only towards me, but towards all the other users that you seem to consider "adversaries". Despite that sour first impression, I actually AGF before posting this thread, first noticing the warring at AGP a month ago, but in the end allowing it to run long enough to see if you were willing to stop the dispute and remain on the talk page until it was over. That didn't happen and here we are.

I find it curious that you brought up the template at WP:PUR's talk page, because this is now another example of how you always try to guarantee that your revision stands on top. I restored the old template this morning and explained why, but you reverted my edit despite the fact that you apparently had a small edit war over the issue and that the exact confrontational pattern is being discussed here. In the archive that you linked, there was no clear consensus. Your argument was rebuffed by FeedBack, you went back and forth, the final comment was done by him and you did not respond to it, but in the end established the version that you preferred. Curiously, I missed this content dispute, but the argument that you presented was not definitive and thus, there was no reason to attempt to enter into a new edit war against me over the matter, yet you undid my edit before pointing me towards the archive. Had I known that this discussion had taken place, I would have posted this image, rebuffing your argument (i.e. "breaks the page when browsing it from a mobile device such as a smartphone…"), leading to a broader discussion. That is the importance of actually trying to engage is an honest consensus before continuing to war. As a matter of fact, if the concern was only seen in the mobile version, simply reporting that the template was having bug-issues would have likely resolved the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are looking at the page from the normal version; look at it from the mobile version by adding 'en.m.wikipedia.org' to the URL. It also probably got fixed with the new iOS v7. Take another screenshot with 'en.m.' and let me know how it looks. Regarding your wall of text: I challenge you to create a tabular list of anything that you believe was improper from my part. You will notice that IN EVERY SINGLE CASE I acted on policy and based on logical arguments. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's ignore the five pillars for a bit; that means I won't further mention what other users interpreted as a breach of WP:NPOV at AGP, the continuous use of the "me vs. you" angle and other MO that point towards WP:IUC and the fact that you have only noted the existence of WP:IAR when it is convenient to your argument. There's still this: "If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards, it should not be treated the same as a good faith mistake". I am not the only one that noticed how you have played these policies in your favor while filibustering, the user that you "banned" from ever editing your talk page and the sysops involved in the Mayors in Puerto Rico affair likely have something to say about your MO. If you are involved in a content dispute, one of the first things that any civil user does is to stop reverting to his/her's version. You continue warring and duking it out in the edit summaries and rarely wait for a neutral player to enter the dispute. For an experienced user, this should be common sense as you are most likely not a stranger to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:

"Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." [...] "Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring."

About the template, there seems to be some parts of the edges that are not entirely seen when the phone is held upwards, however, both of the edges can be see when scrolled ↔ and the template is almost entirely seen when held sideways. That being said, the template is confined and does not "[break] the page when browsing it from a mobile device such as a smartphone". This is a common problem in the mobile version, even the archive template in that page can't be seen completely without scrolling. The page's syntax is functional enough that you could have avoided undoing my edit at least until this thread is closed, but apparently trying to draw me into reviving an old content dispute was more alluring (this is the "me vs. you", "payback time" pattern that was mentioned above).

Which is precisely the issue, you seem to actually be enjoying these conflicts even when you believe that the policies "protect" you. Hence, let's recall WP:DE: "Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia". As I noted in the opening comment, these concerns are easily discernible by quickly browsing your edit history in these pages. With the relevant links provided, I don't see the need to write an arbitrary tabular list. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything that you mentioned are practices that SOME people do when edit conflicts arise. As you yourself have pointed out, they are not REQUIRED. This is what you need to understand. I only revert when I feel it's necessary to do so. I reverted Ingrid Vila Biaggi because someone REMOVED REFERENCED INFORMATION FROM THE ARTICLE. But you did not mention that in your exposition. I reverted Alejandro García Padilla because people removed content which is referenced and verifiable. Now, this particular article has a specific issue: the graphs. I obviously reverted them because we do the same for Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Boris Yeltsin, and Vladimir Putin. You need to understand the issue at hand here: I argue that doing such is fine since this information is WP:VERIFIABLE; others argue that it needs to be removed because a secondary source has not published this information verbatim. They argue it is WP:OR; I argue it is not since it is referenced by a reliable source and since it is verifiable. We are at a stalemate. Such things happen. That's why we issue RFCs and ultimately end up at formal mediation. This is where we are at right now with Alejandro García Padilla. There may be 6 people active on the discussion and only me with a counterargument, but that does not mean I must change my opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We base our decisions by weighing the arguments. Finally, regarding Mayors of Puerto Rico, the article was NOT elevated to ARBCOM; the behavior of an ARBCOM member was elevated to ARBCOM. You failed to mention this in your exposition. So, as you can see, all my edits are always based on logic. You are the only person here who has personally attacked and harassed someone by calling me a "puppeteer". Yet, who is keeping it cool and not taking things personal? You have also opted to simply accuse and provide links without explaining the whole issue at hand. Such as the fact that you were the person that started to be confrontational by accusing me of "patronizing you" and by claiming that you know policies because you "were an admin back in the day". I'm starting to get highly concern about your behavior, taking this thing out of the Wikipedia context this is extremely creepy, obsessive, and even irrational. You have decided to go through my whole edit history, look into every single thing that I have edited, and create a lengthy text to accuse me of being a "filibuster", "aggressive", of "political propaganda" (even though it is referenced and verifiable), "harrasing", of "enjoying conflict". I mean, seriously, from a very personal level this is not healthy behavior. This is a fixation on my persona; it is quite concerning. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree 100% and without any reservations with the depiction of user Ahnoneemoos given above by user Caribbean H.Q. Let me add that it takes a lot of cojones to post on a noticeboard when the object of the notice is a Wikipedian that works for the betterment of the same Puerto Rico projects. This is the case with Ahnoneemoos, Caribbean H.Q., and also myself: we all work heavily, if not exclusively, in the same Puerto Rico WikiProject. But enough is enough, and every bit of information provided above by Caribbean H.Q. is exactly how I would describe Ahnoneemoos. Now - shifting gears - the one area where I do not agree with Caribbean H.Q. is in that "losing [Ahnoneemoos] entirely might actually hurt WP:PUR." The WP:PUR project -is- hurt by editors that act, operate, and behave like Ahnoneemoos. And, no one is indispensible. If Ahnoneemoos was no longer here, others will take his place. On the contrary, I have seen good editors leave because of the behavior of editors like Ahnoneemoos; and User:Jmundo is a good, long time editor who would be a pity to lose. The editors that Wikipedia needs are the ones that follow the rules and get along with others; not those that behave like Ahnoneemoos. I would suggest a topic ban for Puerto Rico topics on Ahnoneemoos: I disagree that a ban from Puerto Rico political and economy articles alone is enough. At this point, it is clear that Ahnoneemoos just does not understand his failure to follow policy can have any real consequences. There have to be real consequences to alienating all of those of us that Ahnoneemoos has managed to alineate. Behavior like his cannot be tolerated forever; it has to come to an end at some point. And we cannot depend on Ahnoneemoos proposing and promising some self control - if there is no admission of wrongdoing, there cannot be a road to self-recovery.

BTW, when I say I agree 100% with Caribbean H.Q., I mean it: I read and re-read Caribbean H.Q.'s posting and -every- statement reads exactly as I have experienced it with Ahnoneemoos. And even when I thought Caribbean H.Q. had already expressed it all properly enough, he went on to describe yet additional disruptive behavior by Ahnoneemoos. It is clear Ahnoneemoos thinks he can get away with repeated violations of policy without consequences. To say he is using the encyclopedia to his advantange and that he is gaming the system is to put it mildly. Mercy11 (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Please notice how this user did not show any evidence for his allegations. Also notice that this user is very well known for being highly disruptive and suffering from WP:OWN. Examples include: Mayors of Puerto Rico where he reverted substantial contributions because according to him the contributions "diminished the quality of the article" and because "the overall results was negative" (I kid you not, these were his own words--see Talk:Mayors of Puerto Rico). He then affirmed that he reverted it to its previous state because such state was "the result of many years work by many editors" which is a case of pure WP:OWN and against how wikis work. This user is also known for removing content simply because "it was not referenced" even though references are not requisites for Wikipedia; only WP:VERIFIABILITY is. Several people, including myself, have warned him about this behavior. See User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2013/August where we had a personal discussion about such. I have explained all this so that you can see his background and how he has interacted with me before. Long story short, this is a personal matter for this person since we have had a few encounters where we had disagreed. Be cautious about his comments. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I generally do not respond in cases like this because I do not care to engage the individual. As such this is not a reply to Ahnoneemoos but I am now talking to the community, and my message is this: "he likes to prove his point to the extent of down right gaming the system...extending the conflict by creating a web of bureaucracy supported by his own interpretation of the policies/guidelines/etc. that he cites"; and "he actually targets all the users that he deems 'adversaries' ". Ditto. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Kindly notice how this user has failed time and time again to provide instances that support his allegations that I have supposedly "gamed the system", "extended conflict", "created a web of bureaucracy", and that I supposedly "target all users that I deem as adversaries". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello everyone. I rarely edit articles about Puerto Rico, but I would like to say that Ahnoneemoos was friendly and helpful to me when I was a new user last year, and although he sometimes seems to get carried away, I don't believe that Wikipedia would be better off without him. Perhaps its just his passion for Puerto Rican topics that is causing the friction. Flouting policies is bad, but I haven't read any suggestion of COI, so saying that he is after some kind of personal advantage is unfair. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne! Besides Anne you can ask also User:Eduscapes, User:Middle More, User:Yield3, User:Vic329, User:Admiralquirk, User_talk:74.192.84.101, and many others on how helpful I am and how I interact with others; specially with newcomers. Most of the people posting on this thread are unable to separate the fact that you can disagree with someone and that that doesn't mean you that you have something against them. For example, even though User:Mercy11 and myself have clashed before, I still requested him for help for an article: see [118] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah....and which I Politely Refused so as to run as far from the disruptive editor as I could. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? That's quite strange since you (1) firstly replied that you "could look into it" (see [119], once again, notice I can easily provide evidence) and (2) you refused because you were "busy working with Puerto Rico fauna and flora" (see [120]). Quite convenient of yours to now say you refused to "run as far from the ddisruptive editor" in order to advance and favor your argument. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Mercy11, the original statement is exactly what *I* am most carefully analyzing. I will post my results of that effort later (as a pointer to avoid cluttering up this space). In the meanwhile, I can state that -- for those of you who enjoy reading actual diffs that actually demonstrate behavior -- a glance through the "curious" instance of when Ahnoneemoos defended the definition of WP:CONSENSUS is a textbook example of how consensus ought to be gained.

  The jury will please note, August was prior to Ahnoneemoos being blocked by SilkTork, but after their encounter with Mercy11, so this sequence should show them at their *worst*. As you will see, their worst seems kinda, umm, constructive and helpful. The relevant period is Aug 13th at 22:52 when a sentence with long-standing consensus was deleted per WP:BOLD by another editor, and then skip to August 26th at 01:32 when Ahnoneemoos entered the second phase of WP:BRD. Along with two other editors plus the originator of the bold change, there were 19 additional edits, ending at 06:19 on August 27th, which *collaboratively*-in-mainspace resulted in a big improvement, with the originator getting the last word in... but with Ahnoneemoos convincing the others that his points were valid.

  Even though, at one point, one particular sentence which Ahnoneemoos "unilaterally" added (guess I'll just let *that* slanted characterization pass... sheesh) that Caribbean-H.Q. pointed out, if you read a bit further in the edit-history you will note that the same editor who reverted it, later added *all* the substantive points back, by *themselves* without Ahnoneemoos reverting the other editor's changes even once.

  Now, I'll admit I didn't look at the talkpage of this collaboration-session, maybe it was all blackmail, maybe Ahnoneemoos was cussing everybody out and threatening to perform WP:9STEPS on them and their families. I sincerely hope not, because then I'll look like a moron.  :-)   But I sincerely doubt it, because the one thing I can say, about my personal experience with them, is that they are very passionate, and that they deeply love wikipedia. Do they always make the right decision? Nope. Do they always assume good faith? Yup. Are they always striving to improve the encyclopedia, *as* an encyclopedia, to the exclusion of all else? Yup.

on the subject of whether Ahnoneemoos welcomes others to their talkpage... for every imaginable purpose

In particular, I have some small insight into what some call an "abrasive" behavior, namely, that Ahnoneemoos disdains tangential user-talkpage chitchat, unless it is about Something Redacted Important. I have had conversations with them there, quite successfully, and have learned much. But when somebody arrives on their talkpage to fight, Ahnoneemoos is Not Interested and tells the person to use a noticeboard if they want a fight. Similarly, if somebody arrives on their talkpage to argue content, Ahnoneemoos is again NOT INTERESTED and tells the person to use the article-talkpage.   Is this behavior prickly? Well, kinda have to admit it is; Ahnoneemoos my friend, have you ever considered the PageNotice wiki-tool, or somesuch?  :-)   Most folks are too busy to read your userpage before posting on your talkpage. But note that Ahnoneemoos *puts* the necessary information right on their userpage, for all to see; *I* saw it before posting, and tread most carefully, thereby surviving to tell the tale, here today. Is their position about No Chit-Chat On My Personal Talkpage perfectly 100% in line with Wikipedia policy? Yes, no doubt. WP:NOTFACEBOOK. WP:NOTDATINGSERVICE. WP:NOTFORUM.

  Ahnoneemoos is here to single-mindedly improve the encyclopedia, and they are passionate about that. Their dedication and their passion sometimes get them into trouble, mostly with people who do not understand them as an individual editor at all, or do not take the time to understand the points they make regarding Wikipedia policy. But despite rubbing some folks wrong, Ahnoneemoos is an asset here. HUGE. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Can you explain your "The jury will please note, August was prior to Ahnoneemoos being blocked by SilkTork, but after their encounter with Mercy11, so this sequence 'should' show them at their *worst*. As you will see, their worst seems kinda, umm, constructive and helpful" ? Who is "them"? Who are you alluding to in your "at their worst"? I am not sure Mercy11 plays a role at all in that. Mercy11 was not involved in Ahnoneemoos's block by SilkTork, nor in the rejected, 0/0/0/0-approval, Complaint that Ahnoneemoos mounted against SilkTork. Mercy11 wasn't even involved in The block that Ahnoneemoos was eventually given HERE. Nor in the subsequent appeal to the block. Are you sure you have your subjects right? Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

He talks in plural third form like Gollum. When he says "them" he means "him" as in me, Ahnoneemoos. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about my confusing phrasing, Mercy11... because I don't know gender, here in the wikiverse, I use the "singular they" just as Ahnoneemoos said. Preeeccciioouuusssss. To recap, in the edit-history seen at WP:CONSENSUS in August this year, the behavior of Ahnoneemoos seemed perfectly reasonable to me, judging by the edit-summaries. This was some time after they (Ahnoneemoos) had their first conflict with you (Mercy11), over the Mayors article, and also some time before they (Ahnoneemoos) had their second conflict, again over the Mayors article, but with different participants (SilkTork being called in at the end).

  Point being: although blocks are not supposed to be punitive in nature, but merely preventative, they (the blocks) do in practice tend to slow down an out-of-control editor, correct? August was long before the block, but not too long. If Ahnoneemoos had a pattern of diffuse harassment, or an uncontrollable battleground mentality, they (Ahnoneemoos) should have been aggressively screwing everything up on August 26th and August 27th, we as editors might reasonably expect. That does not look like what happened, to my eyes, neither from the edit-summaries, nor from the article-talkpage of that period, which I have now reviewed. Policy-page,[121] and talkpage.[122]

  "[Ahnoneemoos's] qualifications went too far, so I reverted that part, but retained much of it."[123] "Ahnoneemoos writes sensible things on this talkpage"[124] Very interestingly to the jury methinks, it turns out that the day *after* Ahnoneemoos was satisfied, and went off elsewhere, additional new editors came in, and began having a significantly-more borderline-aggressive discussion. Nothing I would take them to a noticeboard over, personally (and hence I won't be naming any names here with my purposely vague text), though I might have a private chat with them on their talkpages -- always assuming their talkpage nor userpage cautioned me against such!

  One of the editors, who is named here, and who was active on the 26th and 27th with Ahnoneemoos, and remained active when the discussion got less pleasant, is seen to be fondly recalling the time when Ahnoneemoos had been there. "Over the last few days [26th and 27th presumably] I felt a lot of progress was made on the section using consensus through editing as well as discussion ... This kind of effort benefits from an evolutionary approach, like we were all engaged in [Ahnoneemoos included presumably]. I strongly object to the wholesale revert of all that work progress." The quote is from Born2cycle, the one who reverted Ahnoneemoos, but then put all the substantive points right back in. To my eyes, the behavior of SmokeyJoe, Ahnoneemoos, Born2cycle, and Blueboar was a crystal clear example of consensus-through-editing.

  The collaborative editing was both WP:BOLD and efficient, the end result was an improved article. That is my opinion, sure... but more than that. The evidence *proves* the article was improved, because SmokeyJoe made the first move, August 13th, by boldly changing something disagreed with. Ahnoneemoos reverted them on the 26th, and two other editors joined. SmokeyJoe got the last word... making the final couple edits, and then left, satisfied with the new consensus. It looks better now to *me*, and I don't think I'm imagining things when I say that both Ahnoneemoos and SmokeyJoe and the others involved on the 26th and 27th were unsatisfied with the outcome. Policy-page,[125] and talkpage.[126]

  It was also illuminating on how decisions ought to be made around here: one anon, with policy on their side, trumps the WP:IDHT wishes of 99 pseudonyms, that in any sort of WP:VOTE would otherwise carry the day. Because wikipedia is not about up-voting, down-voting, or facebooky like-counts. Fact is, I like Ahnoneemoos; they are a fascinating human. But if Ahnoneemoos were acting outside policy, running amok, violating pillar four, an enemy of pillar two, and/or subtly undermining pillar one... then I would !vote to topic-ban them in a heartbeat. The five pillars are the lifeblood of wikipedia. Ahnoneemoos knows them well, and follows them faithfully, that I have seen. They were blocked back in 2010, justifiably, for their passion (the trouble was a very highly-charged sticky wicket over whether subtly colonialist category-names should be changed). Passion exploded, Ahnoneemoos lost their cool, and chewed out another editor in frustration; they were righteously blocked by a passing admin.

  From what I can see, the 2010 block served the purpose well: Ahnoneemoos learned. They are doing well, they control their passion here in the wikiverse, subject to the iron law of the five pillars. They are an asset here, and a topic-ban on any portion of Puerto Rico would harm wikipedia herself. Not everybody understands Ahnoneemoos; that is not WP:REQUIRED. Not everybody likes Ahnoneemoos, and subject to WP:NICE of course, that is also not a problem. Rather than fight at the noticeboards to get Ahnoneemoos banned, and accuse them of being WP:DISRUPT, and a "diffuse" type of WP:HA whatever the hell that is, I suggest the folks here that are unhappy with Ahnoneemoos follow the pragmatic strategy. Give out enough WP:ROPE to Ahnoneemoos, and they will either create a noose to hang themselves with it... or instead, weave a beautiful lasso, and capture the content of the world, for all of us to share. I predict the latter. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever been involved in one of Ahnoneemoos's "Consensus" sections? Can you give evidence of that? How many times have you reached consesnus with Ahnoneemoos and when? Are you sure you are talking about the same individual we are discussing here? Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same individual.  ;-)   I've never edited PR articles in mainspace, before today[127] that is, that I remember. As for Ahnoneemoos, yes, I achieved consensus with Ahnoneemoos about username policy, first on the essay-talkpage,[128] and then later hermeneutically on Ahnoneemoos's personal talkpage.[129] That is not to say it was unanimous, because it was not... just like in mainspace for most of our 4 million articles most of the time, if I can gently point out. But it was incredibly productive,[130] for me at least. (Ahnoneemoos will probably gripe about my WP:WALLOFTEXT capacity, which is fully and shamefully on display over on the WP:NOUSERS talkpage, as well as my own talkpage.)

  As to when I've personally achieved consensus with Ahnoneemoos, this was very recently, in October -- coincidentally, I read the essay Ahnoneemoos wrote, on the same ~day they were blocked by SilkTork... and since I'm interested in WP:RETENTION, actually dug quite deeply into the edit-history of Ahnoneemoos, as part of my tradition of performing after-action-reviews. Although it is true that Ahnoneemoos did not visit SilkTork's talkpage, because Ahnoneemoos does not believe in any sort of user-talkpage disagreements[131] no matter how mild, I myself went to SilkTork, to see if something could be worked out regarding the circumstances of the block;[132] in that case Ahnoneemoos's judgment was correct, BASC was the only possibility for resolution, but ArbCom declined to look at the case. Also, a few days later, I posted a talkpage comment on AJG, the disputed governor,[133] suggesting that the graphs should cover the term of the predecessor, plus show relative numbers of the wider economy.

  Not sure how any of this is relevant to whether Ahnoneemoos deserves to be banned from Puerto Rico, or at least the virtual Puerto Rico we have here in the wikiverse, but if you are wondering whether I've ever seen Ahnoneemoos in action there, the answer is definitely yes. To avoid extending this further, I will post a note on your talkpage Mercy11, and see if your questions can be handled off-noticeboard, and then summarized here if needed. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of consensus regarding Puerto Rico articles can be seen at: Talk:Puerto Rico Chief of Staff and Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico. Other evidence can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 17. Notice once again, how we can easily provide evidence against this user's arguments but he has not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And who, besides yourself, says that the "06:19 on August 27th...resulted in a big improvement" ? Pretty much seems like a personal opinion of....you. We need to deal facts here. Thanks if you can provide the evidence as Caribbean H.Q. provided above and I seconded below him. Evidence needs not be repeated ad nauseam once it has been given; but it needs to be given if it hasn't, and the latter of these two seems to be your case. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

See diffs above. I have pinged the editors there that day, in case my characterization is incorrect, plus quoted the talkpage-discussions. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly agree with you. Evidence must be provided. Can you provide evidence of these allegations against my persona? Because so far the ones you have provided have been refuted easily not only by me, but by others as well. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that "Ahnoneemoos [convinced] the others that his points were valid"? Did -they- tell you so or you are actually just speculating? How do we know they weren't more cases of Ahnoneemoos Bitting the others to the point they just decided to let Ahnoneemoos WP:OWN the article and they left to edit elsewhere - as I can personally attest myself was my case with Women in Puerto Rico when Ahnoneemoos showed up to edit that article (verify it HERE)? Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

See diffs above. I was making an educated guess, based on edit-summaries. Having now reviewed the article-talkpage-discussion of the time, see above, my opinion has solidified. Ahnoneemoos did everything just right, on those days. Do you disagree? Did you see out-of-control behavior? Calling the RfC immediately was not at all drastic -- it is a core policy, that consensus is not WP:VOTE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you can look it up yourself by reading the discussion that took place at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 17. Once again, notice how we can easily provide evidence but this user cannot. He is now even accusing me of biting users without even knowing anything about it. Who is being biased and has a preconception here? You be the judge. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Do they always assume good faith? Yup." Are we missing something here? If people like Caribbean H.Q., Jmundo, and myself were convinced that Ahnoneemoos was assuming good faith but that none of us was, we wouldn't be here, would we?. We are talking about (at least) three long-time editors, editing longterm almost exclusively on the same topics that Ahnoneemoos has been editing. You are talking about 3 editors who are members of the same WP:PUR project as the accussed. I am making an educated guess on this one but, you are also even possibly talking about 3 compatriots of Ahnoneemoos, at least from his same ethnic heritage. That I can recall, two other WP:PUR project editors and compatriots had similar experiences with Ahnoneemoos. They are User:Feedback (HERE) and User:Marine 69-71 (HERE where Ahnoneemoos, assuming bad faith (to verify "bad faith" see comments of the closing admin HERE) asked that the admin be desysopped for a mere human error (see Background HERE, especially in "Ahnoneemoos, I thought that we were friends and now you have recommended that my admin. powers be taken away.") ). Again, it takes a lot of cojones to accuse one of your own fellow Wikipedians. Fear, even discomfort, due to the threat posed by Ahnoneemoos's abrassive behavior, is no way to come to edit here every day. So you would need to have a pretty convincing argument or two to support your opinion in implying that our individual and collective perceptions regarding Ahnoneemoos not assuming good faith is wrong and yours is right. In addition, neither "passion" nor "love" for Wikipedia are requirements to edit here; what is a requirement is WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT, etc. - and those have been violated. Passion and love do not justify anything here as their existence in an editor's heart doesn't earn him any points in Wikipedia - let alone that they do not help anyone undo damage he has already done breaking Wikipedia rules.

I do 100% agree that nobody should be fearful, and am sorry you have that fear; but please realize, there is a big difference between angry abrasive abusive, and passionate persistent purposeful. Ahnoneemoos is the latter. I do not believe you came here in bad faith -- quite the opposite, I saw your edit-history at the Mayors article, you were just fine, and the same here, just fine. Your reputation is all good, in my book. And your ability to WP:AGF is unquestioned. Yet you are still incorrect, no matter how convinced you are. Ahnoneemoos often rubs folks the wrong way, because they are not easy to figure out. They do not fit in any "slots" that most editors typically fit into. But WP:IMAGINE applies -- Ahnoneemoos is logical, and they follow policy. WP:RETENTION is my primary goal, nowadays, here in the wikiverse. And quite seriously, I know that Ahnoneemoos is often mistaken for an A.A.A. editor rather than a P.P.P. editor -- that in *itself* is a problem. Many people on wikipedia are worried about retention, not just me. We have an arbcom candidate this year who wants to perma-ban everybody who says "fuck" for any reason whatsoever. Needless to say, I disagree. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not kindergarten.

  Wikipedia is a community of vastly different people, having strange backgrounds, strange ideas, strange passions, and their own way of doing things. Can we all manage somehow to stick to pillar four like a rock? Yes, methinks we can. I don't blame SilkTork for getting the wrong impression, or Mercy11, or anybody. They are doing what they can, to keep wikipedia from being disrupted, and to improve the encyclopedia. Those are noble goals, and I share them. But in this case, some assumptions being made are incorrect -- Ahnoneemoos does not strike me as a secret agent of some political machine, out to drive away all who disagree, and force their will upon trembling wikipedia herself.

  I have not been following Ahnoneemoos around; I'm busy with other things than usernames at the moment. Please, anyone, feel free to prove me incorrect, and I'll change my mind -- post specific diffs which document the gross violations of WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPT that occurred after Ahnoneemoos's 2013 block ended, if you think I am wrong in my assessment. (I'll let you off the hook on WP:OWN since that often cannot be shown with a single diff... but I promise to read Ahnoneemoos's entire edit-history for the page couple months if you can show me the pillar four violations... and umm, I've seen the 2010 incident, that was preventatively corrected, I'm talking about the recent incidents that directly motivated this fresh new noticeboard posting.) Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone that knows my contributions related to other editors' block requests on a third individual knows that I am always like the Lone Ranger - single-handedly speaking for the underdog, always asking for the accussers to show mercy just one more time. My drive is that I believe most editors can be rehabilitated. However, the case with Ahnoneemoos, I am convinced, is not one where rehabilitation is any longer possible. His behavior has been ongoing for way too long, brought up by too many editors, with far too many distractions due to disruptive editing, and with far too many missed opportunities by him for rehabilitation. It needs to end somewhere. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs to end; either Ahnoneemoos should be perma-banned, or you should become convinced that they *are* editing/behaving/working/contributing fully in line with policies, even though some of their particular traits seem odd. They don't like chit-chat on talkpages, which most of us enjoy? Fine. They don't have to be social butterflies. As long as they are here to improve the encyclopedia, that should be all that matters. I suggest we go all in, here, to use the poker terminology; sound like a deal? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet Anne Delong and this IP user has shown up to support me without me inviting them, all by their own accord. So, we should ignore Anne and the IP user and listen only to your arguments? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I had never had any interaction with Ahnoneemoos or the Alejandro García Padilla artice before I noticed his revert of Jmundo (I think on Recent Changes). I am afraid I have to agree that his conduct has been disruptive and indicative of a battleground matter. It has been explained many times why the information he wants to include is original research. The graphs he wishes to include in the article are obviously intended to reflect negatively on the subject's performance as Governor, despite the lack of reliable sources discussing the statistics in the context of the Governor. This is not a case where there can be any reasonable disagreement. Every other editor who has commented has agreed that it cannot be included. Ahnoneemoos constantly responds with very lengthy replies that do not address the real issues. He appears unwilling to accept the clear consensus that it is not appropriate to include the information. I fear that a topic ban from Puerto Rican politics may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neljack (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

An RFC is an RFC. I have presented clear evidence that shows this is not original research and that we do the same for Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Boris Yeltsin, and Vladimir Putin. This doesn't have any intentions; these are facts. If they are negative, they are; if they are positive, they are. We don't care about it; we only present facts (by the way, his latest statistics, which I updated and included to the graph, are actually very positive so your allegation has no ground). Finally, just because we disagree doesn't mean that I'm "unwiling to accept consensus". The RFC has not been closed yet. I have not re-added the images to the article since the RFC was opened. Let the RFC run its course, but requesting to ban me because we disagree? That's not how Wikipedia works. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The issues being discussed here are only related to the politics and economics topics. I did not, nor will, advocate for a complete ban of all Puerto Rico-related articles and nevermind a block. Despite the "battleground mentality" as Neljack describes it, I would not have blocked him over a slow moving edit war. The pace clearly allows for other mechanisms, such as this thread. Being cordial to newcomers is excellent, but not really relevant to the fact that he is both disregarding consensus and gaming the system to ensure that it stays this way. That said, the "me vs. you" angle needs to go, since it seems to carry over to unrelated pages and that will eventually get him blocked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

But you see, that's the problem, you are accusing me of having a "battleground mentality", of "disregarding consensus", of "gaming the system", and of having a "me vs. you attitude" yet you fail time and time again to point exactly where I have done such alleged things. And in those cases where you do provide a link, I have very easily refuted your arguments by providing the background of the instance being referred to.

You need to understand that just because I have a different opinion than yours that does not immediately means that I have a "battleground mentality". Just because there are 6 persons on one side and me alone on its counterargument does not mean that I have a "me vs. them attitude". It just means that I have been unable to convince them... but they have also been unable to convince me. But it's not me against them. It's just a discussion, period. This is normal on all human organizations; not only on Wikipedia. Let me give you an example: this happened at Talk:Puerto Rico Chief of Staff. I reverted User:Pr4ever for changing the name of the article and he contacted me on my talk page explaining why I was wrong. He was unable to convince me so we both together and cordially opened an RFC so that the community could help us (see Talk:Puerto Rico Chief of Staff the evidence is right there in front of your eyes). Eventually I was able to find a reference that proved in fact, that I was wrong —very, very, very wrong— so we immediately reverted the article back to Pr4ever's version. But you failed to mention this case in your diatribe. You see, when people present strong valid arguments or when they are able to convince me that my point of view is incorrect I immediately change postures. But you are only linking discussions in which I have remained unconvinced and where the arguments presented against mine are just weak. This is quite convenient for you to do as it advances and favors your desire to get me banned. Yet time and time again I prove, unequivocally, how I'm very unattached, let things go easily, and never take things personal. Who really is being unbiased and leaving all preconceptions behind on this AN? It certainly doesn't seem to be you as you only post stuff that favors your argument but ignore all others. Isn't that what you are accusing me of?

Politics and economics will always be controversial; evenmoreso Puerto Rico's. That's why we need to keep an eye on them, so that everything adheres to NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Yet you have failed to provide a single evidence of me not adhering to our policies.

You also need to understand that this alleged "behavior" which you are trying to "expose" has always happened in Talk pages. Which exist to guess what for? FOR DISCUSSION. It is not a "slow moving edit war", it is a "slow moving discussion" which right now is in a stalemate. Sorry to break your bubble, but not everyone will always agree with you and even worse: you will not always be able to convince everyone. I know this for a fact: I have not been able to convince the participants at the Alejandro García Padilla RFC of my points. But guess what? That's how Wikipedia works. It's human nature. It's a reality of life. But just because I have been unable to convince them does not mean that I must change my opinion nor that I am "disregarding consensus". You are confusing democracy with Wikipedia's definition of consensus. On Wikipedia you can have 100 people in favor of a particular argument and just 1 guy against it. But if that one guy against it is solid with his arguments, his point will ultimately prevail on Wikipedia.

You are accusing me of "disregarding consensus" but have failed to provide evidence of such while I myself and others have provided you with evidence of several cases where I have let things let go and not reverted my edits after the community has reached a particular consensus (case in point is Mayors of Puerto Rico which I have not touched AT ALL after the RFC was closed even though I completely disagree with its outcome). Then, to top it off, it seems you now have some sort of magic ball and can see the future since you ascertain that I will eventually get myself blocked and that I will carry stuff to other unrelated pages, and that I must be banned because of this ability you have of seeing the future. Once again, I challenge you to publish a tabular list where you evidence these allegations. So far you have not. And of those that you have I have refuted every single one of them very easily; so have others.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• In support of Neljack's comments, I add that Ahnoneemoos started editing profusely about 13 months ago today, more precisely it was exactly on November 7, 2012, The day that the new candidate for governor from Puerto Rico's pro-Commonwealth Popular Democratic Party, Alejandro García Padilla, beat the incumbent from the opposing pro-statehood New Progressive Party. That's a fact. Also, Women of Puerto Rico is not a Puerto Rico political article, yet I was driven away by Ahnoneemoos behavior. That's a fact too. Reason why I said ban him from all PR-related articles...perhaps until the next Puerto Rico election or so. If he wants something added to articles from which he is banned, he can always make place a request in the corresponding Talk Page. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you know what happened before November 7, 2012 (the day you mention)? The Puerto Rican general election, 2012. Wanna know why I started editing "profusely"? Because not only did the Governor change, but also the political party in power, the political balance in the Senate, and the political balance in the House. Puerto Rico not only got a new Governor, but a new Senate and a new House as well. Pretty convenient of yours to focus solely on the Governor but ignore the House and Senate in order to advance and favor your argument but failing to mention how the whole political landscape changed in Puerto Rico. Pretty convenient of yours to fail to mention how I congratulated User:Thief12 for creating every single article of ALL the legislators (from all parties) before the upcoming year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Archives/2012/December#Thank you Thief12). Pretty convenient of yours to fail to mention that I was the author of Inauguration of Alejandro García Padilla and that I was also the one that added that he is doing an EXCELLENT job on Puerto Rico's foreign affairs (see [134]; once again notice how I provide evidence over and over every single time but this user does not). Pretty convenient of you to fail to mention that I was also the author of Puerto Rico free association movement, Manuel Natal, Ingrid Vila Biaggi, Alberto Bacó Bagué, Melba Acosta, Rafael Román Meléndez, Carlos Rivas Quiñones, Javier Ferrer Fernández, Puerto Rico Municipal Financing Agency, Puerto Rico Trade and Export Company, should I continue? How were you driven away by my "behavior"? So, I can't edit anything now because if it's something you also want to edit I will somehow strangely drive you away? I'm really trying to remain impartial but this personal vendetta of yours and this implicit paranoia is not helping. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here are some memorable quotes from Ahnoneemoos.:

"Why the fucking fuck are you guys talking about Luis Fortuño and tourism?...Why the fuck do we have pictures of the Milla de Oro and the Concha Resort in this section when we have a fucking pie chart of the whole economy???? Godammit."

[135]

"By the way, all the shit and crap you guys have been putting in this section has now been moved to..."

[136]

"It's incredible how much effort, time, and energy you guys have put in the fucking political status shit instead of..."

[137]

"Fucking shame on you all -- how do you consider yourselves Puerto Ricans or friends of Puerto Rico?"

[138]

Mercy11 (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Make sure that you read WP:PROFANITY and WP:CENSORED: using profanity is not prohibited, as long as said profanity is not pointed towards a person and is not used as a personal attack. Like in the quotes, "fucking political status shit" or asking "why the fuck is this happening?" is OK since it's not pointed towards someone. But saying something like, "Ahnoneemoos you are a fucktard" would be a personal attack. Since this has always been a contentious area I will leave a third party to judge wether these comments were inappropriate or not. Now, I implore you to check that article's history. You will notice how certain editors (not the above poster; in his defense) have decided to spend an inordinate amount of time on expanding the subject of Puerto Rico's suzerainty to the United States and its colonial status in the Puerto Rico article up to every single intricate detail and then some. You then have other people (not the above poster) putting incorrect information and focusing on past governors on certain sections on the article. This is all done in order to advance a particular point of view in order promote the editor's bias. We call this WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. The Puerto Rico article has always been subject to systemic bias. For example, the political status subject within the Puerto Rico article (which is supposed to be general) contains more than 20 paragraphs in total while the sections of architecture, arts, cuisine, literature, media, and music, are completely empty. Considering how this systemic bias is evident and that several different editors have been involved, I wanted to state a strong warning in the article's talk page that such bias is not good for Wikipedia, nor for Puerto Rico, nor for its people. Hence, my use of profane words. Once again, make sure that you understand the context of the situation, rather than just the linked instance as the above poster has done in order to conveniently advance his point to get me banned. However, as stated above, considering how profanity has always been contentious on Wikipedia, I will leave such judgement to a third party. I gladly open myself to any sanctions should an admin determine so; but that sanction cannot be a ban nor a topic ban related to Puerto Rico as such action would be detrimental to the project as others have stated above considering the vast amount of positive contributions that I constantly make to the subject. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the full quote, which the above poster has conveniently omitted in order to advance his point to get me banned. Notice how I warn about the systemic bias:

It's incredible how much effort, time, and energy you guys have put in the fucking political status shit instead of focusing on arts, music, architecture, literature, media, and cuisine. Stop this madness. Summarize this shit down and go into details on the corresponding article. This article should give you a GENERAL idea of the different subjects related to Puerto Rico, not every single detail about what has happened or is expected to happen. Fucking shame on you all -- how do you consider yourselves Puerto Ricans or friends of Puerto Rico?

Notice how the above poster focuses on the profanity to conveniently advance his point but leaves out the warning about systemic bias which I have underlined for your convenience.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos, your arguments remain the same as in your first reply. I already know that you believe that everything was done "within policy" and hence, continue adamant in the position that the arguments "have already been dismissed". But this thread was not created to continue going around in a circular argument between those involved, I am seeking independent opinions about your current MO in the articles related to politics and economics (only those, I am not interested in the parallel discussion about a complete ban or if you are occasionally jolly). Really independent, not yours, mine or that of people that have interacted with you.

Let us leave the other concerns aside and focus on WP:CON (I won't touch the WP:CIVIL issues that seem to be the main theme of Mercy's argument) which is the root of the concerns. You claim to have "refuted every single one of them very easily", yet the only rebuttals that other users have posted in your favor have been based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, i.e. "he is cordial to new users" and "he reached consensus in other pages", yet none discuss the actual issues: Politics and economics. As noted, the links to the edit histories of the articles are already provided above, the links to the history of the talk pages are also posted.

Now, why do you keep getting accused of disregarding consensus? Because you always revert to your revision even when no consensus has been reached. I am saying that you are ignoring the policy, notably WP:CONACHIEVE, not a pre-established consensus. In more than one example, you reverted to your revision even when more than a single user disagreed with your arguments (this is very obvious by simply glancing the histories of AGP and Mayors in Puerto Rico, but also seen in WP:PUR's talk page, where you randomly reverted my edit citing a discussion where no consensus was achieved). If these differences were simply being discussed in the talk page while both you and the other part(s) tried to disarm the issues, then it would certainly be a "slow moving discussion". But alas, you actually keep reverting to your revision while the discussion is going on in the talk page (never mind those cases where you further complicate the matter by filing a RFC or other measures to further dilate the conversation while also assuring that you revision stays posted throughout the entire process) turning the matter into a "slow moving edit war". Again, as stated above, at AGP you continued to edit the article even after "pp-dispute" was added; and not only "edit", but actually continued to add material discussing the concerns being "disputed" (economics). Even if you slightly modify the content, re-adding it during the course of a discussion is disregarding the pursue of an honest consensus and WP:CON.

If you are a frequent collaborator of WP:PUR, you should have known that the RFC was premature and unnecessary because Jmundo does not edit frequently (even when working along him in a project, you need to wait days to get a reply because of his rate) and he was not going to keep undoing your edits on a daily basis. Again, per CONACHIEVE outside opinions should be pursued "when talk page discussions fail" and in this case, the conversation was ongoing and his last edit before the RFC was filed was not really relevant to the dispute. I have seen that you frequently cite WP:BOLD, which is fine, but don't forget about WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Be bold, but not rash. [...] In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines." You were dealing with a user that was presenting concise arguments, why avoid an honest discussion and instead continue to add content related to said arguments? As seen there, you keep complicating the process for you adversaries (delaying the action of actually reaching a consensus) and then continue to add and re-add your content, that is why you keep being accused of filibustering (and for the record, I am not the first to do so).

The discussion at Puerto Rico Chief of Staff was solid and actually discussing the matter with Pr4ever (on his initiative) was positive. Had you continued to act like this, instead of engaging in the MO mentioned above and/or "banning" people from your talk page, then perhaps this thread would not exist. Unfortunately, that has not been the case lately and thus, here we are. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, everything that you mentioned is within policy. The RFC was opened for graphs but the information that I added while the discussion was ongoing was about the governor raising taxes, but it was not the graphs, the graphs have never been re-added since the RFC was opened. This is clearly evidenced by the link you provided here [139]. This is within policy. Just because we are discussing a certain subject does not prohibit me from working on other related subjects on the article.

Second, you need to understand that reverting is fine. For example, the graphs in question were being discussed since I was the one that opened the discussion about this matter on the talk page. You have failed to mention this on your exposition that I was the one that opened the discussion yet somebody else reverted me; see [140] where Jmundo reverts back while the discussion is ongoing. Isn't that exactly what you are arguing? That you are not supposed to revert when stuff is being discussed on the talk page? Because that's what happened here. I was reverted after I started a discussion. Once again, you conveniently leave facts behind and don't explain in context in order to advance your point to get me banned. Shouldn't you be arguing that Jmundo gets banned instead since he was the one reverting me when a discussion was ongoing? Who is being neutral here and who is being biased? Have I ever accused Jmundo of anything?

Third, wether the RFC was premature or unnecessary is an opinion. Jmundo and myself could not reach consensus so I did what any reasonable person would do: I opened up a discussion at WP:DRN. Now, at DRN the admins there were inclined to agree with Jmundo and since I was still unconvinced I went to the next step in our dispute resolution process: I opened an RFC. This is sensible since DRN is informal, voluntary, and not binding. It is also within policy. Once again, DRN is not binding. DRN is, "a gateway to other processes in the dispute resolution hierarchy" (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN). Once again, you conveniently leave facts behind and don't explain in context in order to advance your point to get me banned.

Fourth, it seems that your whole argument is based on the WP:BRD cycle. You believe that if someone reverts you that you are supposed to stop and not revert. But you need to understand that while BRD is practice by many, BRD is not a policy nor a guideline. BRD is encouraged but not required. Evenmoreso, I was the one reverted while the discussion was ongoing!

Now, finally, I want to close this once and for all since once again you conveniently leave facts behind and don't explain in context in order to advance your point to get me banned. The reason why I asked User:Op47 to stop posting on my talk page was because he insulted the beautiful people of Puerto Rico. For your convenience, this is what he stated in his message:

I don't know what passes for civilised language in Puerto Rico, but the language that you have used here 6 is unacceptable.

I don't know about you, but that's highly patronizing of Puerto Rican people and pretty much called them uncivilized. Once again, you failed to mention this in your exposition. Once again, you conveniently leave facts behind and don't explain in context in order to advance your point to get me banned.

Should I have asked the user to stop posting on my talk page after that? Yes, because it is obvious that I could not engage in a civilized conversation with this user. Notice how I explicitly advise him to go WP:ANI in order to involved other editors and in order to avoid conflict between the two of us after such insult. But once again, you failed to mention this in your exposition. Once again, you conveniently leave facts behind and don't explain in context in order to advance your point to get me banned.

After this extremely lengthy diatribe of yours, and after this highly obsessive behavior of yours towards my person I will simply stop participating in this discussion. I highly advise that you reconsider what has happened here and how your behavior is quite concerning. This is not healthy. And I'm not talking about Wikipedia, I'm talking about your own personal health. This fixation is not healthy.

To the admins watching this: notice how this person conveniently shows only what favors him and how he has failed time and time again to provide concrete proof of this alleged behavior. I submit myself to any sanctions that our admin teams considers necessary here; if any. But before reaching a conclusion, make sure you are fully aware of the context and background, and take consideration of this user's behavior against my persona as evidence with links previously (where he insults me, calls me a puppeteer, and keeps harassing in other users talk pages). His obsession is crystal clear.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I thought that I'd point out that the spectacular amounts of text that has been generated in this text is not conducive to review by the admins. Unless I'm mistaken, this is verging on the level of an RFC/U. There is simply too much going on for any one (or even 4 admins) to go over. I highly suggest to Caribbean H.Q. and Mercy11 that they put together an RFC/U and to be brief about it. I believe that if this goes on any longer, the ANI regulars are going to wash their hands of this and collapse it as TLDR and direct you to RFC/U anyway. Blackmane (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because Jmundo is not the one involved in several content disputes over the course of a few months? That being said, he is not free of wrongdoing, it takes two to edit war. My entire argument is not based on BRD, that you refuse to acknowledge the other concerns is your personal decision. That little example was a response to the fact that you keep insisting that "no evidence is being provided". Again, there are several concerns that I systematically ignored in subsequent posts, but that are still listed and that is without counting those that the other users mentioned. FYI, I did read this revision. And I naturally detected the dickish tone of that line. Does that make the rest of the argument invalid? Off course not. Not does it change that your comment towards him was equally dickish. Now, if we can put demagogy aside, the fact of the matter is that you completely closed one of the windows that help in finding a resolution to the conflict and when someone else did, he found himself at WP:ARBCOM after his criteria told him that this pointish edit (you knew quite well that the reason why "the default duration of an RfC is 30 days [is] because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time", not because it has to be open for 30 days for a consensus to be reached." Furthermore, you could simply ask for it to be reopened instead of reverting, something that you seem to do a lot of when involved in conflicts) was disruptive. And of all places, you did that in a page where you had been involved in another content dispute less that a year before.

Finally, about that little straw man argument in the end, had I been "out to get you", this thread would be more in line with Mercy's argument, civility issues are way easier to present. I established the fact that losing you entirely may actually hurt the project, it's a shame that you fail to notice that. In the end, I am not nor have ever been involved in any content dispute against you, which means that there is nothing to "win" here as you seem to imply. It is also a shame that you decided to turn this into something personal. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You just called me a dick. You have also called me a puppeteer. This is an insult. This is a personal attack. This is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONAL, and our Terms of Use. I cannot continue to engage you. Please, from now on, ask for a mediator if you wish to communicate with me. Why have you not been banned after this is unbeknownst to me. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Followed up at Archive 822 HERE.Mercy11 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:MILLION

I believe that I have 22 articles that should be listed at WP:MILLION that are not (Anthony Davis (basketball), Barry Bonds, Campbell's Soup Cans, Carly Foulkes, Cloud Gate, Denard Robinson, Evan Turner, First inauguration of Barack Obama, IJustine, Jabari Parker, Jack Kemp, Jake Long, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jessica Gomes, Jon Corzine, Juwan Howard, Kinky Boots (musical), Royce White, Tim Hardaway, Jr., Tory Burch, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Victoria's Secret Fashion Show). I have been told that I am not suppose to nominate myself at that page due to an interaction ban with User:Khazar2. I have already calculated yearly totals at User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews#250.2C000.2B_yearly_views so you don't have to troll through the data for all of these. Whether or not there is an i-ban, my articles should be listed if eligible. Can an admin help me to nominate these articles or process their recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have been told that. I think you have been told, by me and by others, that you are free to post there so long as you stay out of threads that involve the user that you have been banned from interacting with. Shouldn't be too hard to do, and certainly does not require an administrator to do it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I came here because Diannaa recently pinged my talk page about me accidentally signing up to review one of Khazar2's WP:GAN noms and my posting this request at WP:MILLION. She stated that "this edit at Talk:Wikipedia talk:Million Award was also in violation of your interaction ban". So I removed my post and posted here. Is there consensus that I should post this request there?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Posting there won't get you the desired awards, as these were handed out exclusively by Khazar2, who has retired. It was his project; that's why I felt your posting there was in violation of your topic ban. The instructions say that the award can be self-awarded. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears on the talk page that Crisco 1492 is quite active at handing these out. I don't know if anyone else is, but he may try to keep this running.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? You do not have any articles that should be listed - the community does. GiantSnowman 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:MILLION. In this context, it is common to claim an article. Look at the talk pages over there. Everyone claims articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned in our previous discussion that I question why you so crave an award issued by someone you obviously do not like or respect. You got those articles up to the highest levels of quality. That is a good thing and you are to be commended for it, but making a big deal about getting this user award cheapens your accomplishment and makes you look rather petty. Wouldn't it be simpler to just be satisfied with your accomplishments, which undeniably have improved the encyclopedia? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Um. No you didn't. Not in the 20:13, 8 December 2013 comment above. Either you or I misunderstands the word petty. I think it would be petty to decide whether or not you want an award based on who awards it or to base your decision who the award is granted to based on their user name. I also think it would be petty to quit WP when someone you dislike applies for your award like Khazar2 seems to have. Saying you want an award that recognizes the accomplishment that you actually made is not being petty.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this remark which you should probably review. Please do not comment on Khazar any further or you will leave no choice but to block you. This behavior reflects very poorly on you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I am going to put this list of nominees back up over there and wait for a response.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Now unwatching here. Ping me with issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternate account of blocked editor needs block

Ansei (talk · contribs) is a confessed sockpuppet of the indeffed Enkyo2 (talk · contribs). He hasn't made any problematic edits, but both accounts should probably be blocked as a formality. I post this here now because I have a slight suspicion that he is the anonymous user responsible for the recent IP vandalism to Donald Keene. It therefore seemed problematic that the user currently has full access to at least one unblocked account. 182.249.240.6 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocking the account of User:Ansei (inactive since May) wouldn't stop the IP edits to Donald Keene. If you think those IPs are being operated by an editor who is blocked under his main account, feel free to open a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Your own complaint here would be more credible if it came from someone with an account or a stable IP. I've semiprotected Donald Keene since none of the IPs there have been waiting for consensus on talk before reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Best practice for closing an AFD as MERGE

If after reviewing an AFD and deciding to close it as a MERGE, is the closing administrator expected to do the actual merging or simply tag it. I'm not having a problem with this but I want to avoid in problem in the future. JodyB _talk 19:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the closing admin has to do the merging. The way I see it, it's better if someone familiar with the two articles does it, since they will better be able to make an editorial decision about how to present the information/how much to merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I only merge myself when it is trivial, otherwise I tag it. If we require admins to merge articles, AfD discussions will be rarely closed as merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Also WP:Closing Administrator is not an Edit on Demand Service. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No... -- KTC (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we have a whole set of tags like {{afd-merge from}} for marking the appropriate pages. I will sometimes do a "quick and dirty" merge by just pasting everything over and leave a note that I have done so on the talk page, or just redirect the to-be-merged page and note at the target page that content can be pulled from the history if desired, but nobody has to do any of that if they don't want to. Generally, admins should not act as content editors and administrators in the same place. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys. I thought that was the correct way to go but just wanted to make sure. JodyB _talk 05:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I recommend establishing the redirect to the appropriate section and allowing interested editors to actually copy the information from the history at their leisure. Most of the time that people argue for merge they are really saying "cover the material in the parent article" and the parent article already contains coverage of the topic. Placing the redirect is fast, easy, and generally most of what needs to be done.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree. Following a notability AFD which does not result in "keep" and where there is a suitable target, a "redirect" which invites editors to merge is a good idea. It prevents the article just hanging around and it may be preferable to a deletion when the "delete" voters are essentially saying that an article is not justified rather than that the material ought to be expunged. The redirect can be protected when necessary to prevent recreation whilst still allowing merging. Thincat (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that redirects have advantages that should be considered by both the participants and the closer, but I oppose a closer unilaterally pushing a delete consensus to redirect, as we discussed at User talk:Salvidrim!/Q4 2013 Archive#Silver Lake Village (Michigan), regarding WP:Articles for deletion/Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (2nd nomination). Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes.... that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Zichyújfalu

Zichyújfalu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Please declared a protected Zichyújfalu articles. (Google translater, I can't speak english language.) --117.59.224.58 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And: Seregélyes --180.180.121.200 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

HELP!!! Szákszend! What is this? --180.180.121.200 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused; what's going on here? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Those articles were vandalised (with the exception of Seregélyes, which was nominated for speedy deletion without a valid CSD criterion specified). Zichyújfalu was particularly bad, so I semi-protected it for three days and put it on pending changes for a month. Not sure if any of the IPs in question are the same person. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, was s/he asking for page protection? I wasn't sure. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Style (without pants) "Edit Warring"

Chicago Style (without pants) (talk | contribs) has been re-adding the POV template to Palestinian people repeatedly. He has been warned multiple times, but he continues anyways. Bojo1498 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You should have notified them of this discussion, and normally edit warring should be reported at WP:AN3 while any problematic editing in areas subject to ArbCom sanctions should be made at WP:AE. However I have blocked for two weeks since they have been blocked before for warring behavior at the same article and it is subject to WP:ARBPIA. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rough consensus fork at MfD

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus, we are discussing separating the rough consensus subsection in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators to its own guideline page without changing the text and transcluding it back into Deletion guidelines for administrators so that page remains unchanged. It is a deletion/move issue that came from my nominating the 29 August 2013‎ fork Wikipedia:Rough consensus for deletion. There appear to be at least two issues with the Deletion guidelines for administrators page: (1) deletion guidelines applying to more than just admins and (2) rough consensus not being limited to deletions. Separating the rough consensus guideline from deletion guidelines for administrators guideline will allow consensus to modify each guideline separately since they are different issues. SmokeyJoe seems to have a good point in our need to better recognize the contributions of non-admins to the close process and that rough consensus applies to more than deletion discussions. The MfD is limited to the second issue - that rough consensus applies to more than deletion discussions. Again, a proposed outcome of the MfD discussion would result in a structural change only and not change any guideline. Please consider posting your thoughts at the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus. The main MfD request, delete the current fork Wikipedia:Rough consensus is there as well, so feel free to comment on that. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor nitpick - I think you got that last piped link backwards; you probably meant MfD (that is, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus|MfD]]). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Sanctions at Political activities of the Koch brothers

I would like an uninvolved admin to evaluate whether the discretionary sanctions on climate change topics should be applied to a section of Political activities of the Koch brothers. This is a chronically-troubled article that is already subject to sanctions related to Tea Party controversy. Thanks in advance! Roccodrift (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes (but only limited to that section). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should I place a Talk template and notify recently involved editors myself? Or is that a task to be performed by an admin? Roccodrift (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

MONGO did it for AE, and he's not an admin. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Founder proposal

This was a proposal back in 2010 and I don't think it's relevant anymore. But I would like to know what template to use for this; do I mark the page as historical, the RFC as failed, or the RFC as stale? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• We can't really assess consensus from so far back so I have marked this as historical. YMMV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

Is badly backlogged, with some requests from early last month still unanswered. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Just did a bunch, but it is still pretty bad and I have work to do in real life. The main issue is that admins are issuing username soft-blocks and reviewing admins are not respecting that choice and adding additional conditions through the use of {{coiq}} when in fact the majority of these users have responded in good faith to the block notice as originally made. Comment on this practice is currently being sought at Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

UTRS is backlogged as well with 25+ requests outstanding. I'll start working through them now but would welcome a couple extra hands. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am responsible for a Wikipedia educational assignment and one of my students Masumi Patzel has been denied editing access. She gets the following message: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. Our campus administrator Biosthmors has suggested I post a request to unblock her access here. thanks Ituta (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ituta, I cannot find any autoblocks on the Masumi Patzel account. Could you please verify that she is still unable to edit, and if so provide the IP address that is noted in the block message? If you would like to keep the IP private you can email me the information.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo (talk · contribs) I can give you the block ID- 4871313 and more info from the email she got: A user of this IP address was blocked by Orangemike for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. Ill now ask Masumi Patzel for her IP address. thanks Ituta (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Ponyo (talk · contribs) the account is no longer blocked. thanks again Ituta (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know and best of luck with the assignment. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

More Nyttend

Nyttend has speedily deleted the artilce on Swift-Kyle House. I am not an administrator so I can't see what was there, but I believe I created this article, included see alsos, and I don't think a National Register of Historic Places listed property should be deleted in this manner. Nyttend did not notify my of the deletion or make any comment to me about this proprty or communicate and concerns to me about the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And I see that he also deleted Sweetwater Inn. I was having trouble finding sources on this structure, but I don't think it should have been speedily deleted in this manner. I have never seen a National Register of Historic Places listed property deleted in a deletion discussion and I believe that Nyttend is again acting against community consensus and in a manner that is disruptive and antagonistic towards good faith contributors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Both were deleted as A10 which should mean the articles already exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite extensive warnings, Candleabracadabra continues creating totally unreferenced substubs with absolutely no information other than what already appears on the National Register list from which these substubs are linked. Let me quote part of the criterion in question: "does not expand upon, detail, or improve information" on the topic in question. Look at one of these articles: the entire text was

'''Sweetwater Inn''' is a historic hotel in [[Thomson, Georgia]] in [[McDuffie County, Georgia]]. It was added to the [[National Register of Historic Places]] on May 2, 1985. It is located off GA 17 on Old Milledgeville Road.[line break][line break]The building's coordinates are 33°24′58″N 82°27′19″W / 33.416111°N 82.455278°W / 33.416111; -82.455278

All of this is already on the local list, National Register of Historic Places listings in McDuffie County, Georgia, which gives the place, its address, and its coordinates. Finally, note that the criterion prohibits the deletion of articles whose titles are useful redirects. Redirecting SUBJECT to a "list of SUBJECTs" page is never a good idea, so this too is not a problem. What we have is an editor who persists in creating bad pages and complains when he's show how our policies treat pages such as the ones he creates. Any reasonable administrator is going to see these pages as A10 candidates, and any reasonable administrator is also going to observe that Candleabracadabra's idea of reasonable page creation includes copyvios such as Carnegie Library of Albany, which took text from this page via a Waymarking page that I'm not providing on WP:COPYLINK grounds. Why do we tolerate such actions when they're badly at variance with all relevant consensus (as noted repeatedly at his talk page) as well as with several of our core policies, especially when his first action after a dispute is to run to AN instead of "expressing the concerns directly to the administrator responsible and trying to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner". We should be generous and assume good faith on the part of someone who isn't aware of our standards, but when someone is well aware of them and keeps on violating them, we have no reason to assume good faith. These actions need to be stopped now, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Even if separate articles are unwarrented, the correct response here wouldn't be to delete the articles, but to redirect them to the relevant lists. You shouldn't be using your admin tools to try and win a dispute about how to arrange content. WilyD 14:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• restore An A10 deletion is for an overlapping topic (not just a standalone article) and is also qualified as "does not expand upon, detail or improve information". However we also have WP:IMPERFECT. These articles seem to be standalone articles from redlinks in list articles. As they're listed buildings (or US equiv.), there is robust sourcing for each one. It is implausible that such an article would be deleted it it went through AfD: because whatever the state of the article, the topic is clearly notable and the rest is just the work of writing.

CSD is there to simplify deletion of articles that would be a "clear unambiguous and unanimous delete" at AfD. It is not there as a means of bypassing AfD for articles that instead would be an equally obvious keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Restore. This is BS, it was just covered at ANI. You (Nyttend) appear to have a case of "don't like it" and "don't hear it." I would advise you to reconsider these actions before the community reconsiders the trust that it placed in you. You are also involved and don't need to be using the mop here. GregJackP Boomer! 12:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with User:WilyD that admin tools seem to have been used during an editing dispute as a means "to arrange content". Reverse if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least these are appropriate candidates for a redirect, and not A10 candidates (as the criterion is currently written) so I've restored their history and redirected them to the parent list article. However, I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should/could stand alone or not, so don't worry about checking with me or something before reverting back to the article, if that's what consensus decides. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted to drop a note that I've done some work on expanding and improving Carnegie Library of Albany. Not done yet, but I think it can become a nice article. Chris857 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) PS. the one now at Carnegie Library of Albany (Albany, Missouri) Chris857 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nyttend, seriously, you need to stop this, because your recent administrative actions are clearly annoying a LOT of people. If you carry this up, you'll end up being RFC/Ued, or hauled up in front of ArbCom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Candleabrabacadabra and copyvio

Related to the above: in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#User:Nyttend, near the bottom, there was an issue with Candleabracadabra getting messages from MadmanBot (bot checking for copyright violations in new articles), where Candleabracadabra got some sound advice from User:Flatscan.

Today, i.e. a week later, Candleabracadabra again gets a MadManBot warning, User talk:Candleabracadabra#Colored Memorial School and Risley High School, after which Candleabracadabra rewrites the article (OK), but with a rather alarming comment on the actual copyvio status: "Not sure that it realyl constituted a copyvio, but I am happy to play it safe and be conservative. "

Let's compare the source and the article line by line.

Source	Original version of article
"Brunswick's first public school for African Americans opened in 1870 as the Freedmen's School, later changed to Risley School to honor Captain Douglas Gilbert Risley, who raised funds for the school's construction. "	"Opened in 1870 as the Freedmen's School, the school was Brunswick's first public school for African Americans. The name was changed to Risley School in honor of Captain Douglas Gilbert Risley helped raise funds for the school's construction."
"In 1923 the adjacent building, Colored Memorial High School, was built and named to honor African-American veterans in World War I."	"In 1923 the Colored Memorial High School opened in an adjacent building. It was built and named to honor African-American veterans in World War I."
"In 1936 Risley High School was built on the site of the 1870 Freedmen'd School and remained in service until 1955 when a new Risley High School was constructed."	"Risley High School was constructed on the site of the 1870 Freedmen's School in 1936 and remained open until 1955 when a new Risley High School was constructed."

To create this kind of near-straight copy days after being warned about such copyright violations (in an AN discussion), and the lack of clue that this may have been a problematic creation, is worrying. And it isn't a new problem. Only looking at MadManBot warnings on his user talk page (which may or may not be correct), we have:

• 29 April 2012
• 25 June 2012
• 7 May 2013
• Another on the same day
• 10 May 2013
• 18 June 2013
• 5 August 2013
• 16 October 2013
• 13 November 2013
• 2 December 2013
• 3 December 2013
• 12 December 2013

So, if anything, it only seems to get worse, not better. Fram (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block. Anyone who demonstrates such a lack of understanding of copyright opens us up to legal liabilities and should not be editing here. I shudder to think about the WP:CCI. --Rschen7754 11:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulling this for now, awaiting further discussion. --Rschen7754 00:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed two of the items on the list. The first Manly N. Cutter was cleared after a review, but the most recent version was cleared, with a note that the problems had been "cleaned". To be sure they were cleaned by Candleabracadabra, however, the creation process in this article, and the other one I reviewed is not acceptable. It appears that the first version of the article (no longer viewable) was a lightly edited version of a copyrighted source, then edited to clean the problems. This is not a best practice, although it if done correctly, is not a prohibited practice. What is prohibited is doing that in article space, as the .history still contains the copyvios (which I have now removed). If one chooses to follow this undesirable approach, it must be done offline. Not until a clean version exists should it be moved to article space. In the case of Grooverville Methodist Church, the initial version was too close to a source, and that hasn't changed after ten days of editing, so I deleted it. I have only looked at two articles, but the general approach is troubling.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In the recent cases identified above, I believe the source of the alleged copyvio is a historical marker. As these historical markers were created before the 1970s and without any indication of an assertion of copyright, I don't think there is a copyright claim to be made. This is on top of the fact that there was some rewording and reworking. Historical markers are in fact posted to educate and proliferate information about a subject. There has been some discussion here and elsewhere on the issue. Furthermore I would dispute whether the type of statements noted above "XYZ was built on January 4, 1894" are copyrightable. These are basic facts. I'm not sure how much they can be rewritten or need to be rewritten, but if others have suggestions I am happy to discuss, learn and improve my work. It's also probably worth noting that the online sources cited DO in fact copy the historical markers word for word, something I didn't do. How exactly does someone repharase, reword, and rework "The John Doe building was constructed in 1894" sufficiently to pass muster?

I would appreciate some clarification on the matter, but if I'm to be drawn and quartered for creating copyvios I think the accusations need to have merit and to be discussed calmly and using reason. In the case of the historical markers, who exactly is the copyright holder? When was the assertion of copyright made?

I take these allegations seriously, but if in fact these are copyvios then we have a very large problem on our hands because we have LOTS of images of historical markers on commons. And the images often recreate not only the text, word for word in its entirety for many of these markers, but also logos and emblems.

I take this issue seriously and I am happy to dicuss the issues. I think this antagonistic approach is probably not the best way to go about it. In at least two of the other cases above the sources were from the State of Florida and I believe, again, that the content is by law public domain. Still, I make every effort to rectify and be conservative in any case that arise, even where I don't think the suspicion or allegation is warranted. And as was noted I above I did my best to remove any possiblity of a copyvio from article text. But I think we should be careful about making a slew of accusations that require calm consideration instead of finger pointing, smearing, and jumping to conclusions. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The historical marker for Brunswick was created in 2004[141], so all of your defense is wrong from the very start. I have no idea where you got the impression that "these historical markers were created before the 1970s". Fram (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a variety of issues that need response in your post above, but I'll just make a few points and hope someone takes the time to post more later. To be sure, it is assumed all creative works are under copyright unless stated otherwise and even if they are public domain sources, plagiarism is still frowned upon.

I'm not sure this is an "antagonistic" approach--this is a discussion noticeboard, with topics leaning toward admin attention (such as clearing copyvios from revision histories). Killiondude (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet Wikipedia holds photos like this found in the historical marker article itself, which clearly show a year 2000 date of inscription and with the copyright asserted to be the Wikipedia editor/photographer, and whose image pages even have a full-text transcription of the photographed text. It seems to me that hanging Candleabracadabra here is not the priority if Wikipedia holds numerous similar potential copyvios by others. Rather it looks like a policy discussion about [re-]publishing the text of historical markers is in order. Additionally, I agree with Candleabracadabra that copying the very short sentences of the type "<Building> was constructed on <date>" do not constitute a copyright violation (if that's all he copied); such short sentences by themselves do not pass the threshold of originality. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You raise a good point that we have some work to do to determine which of those historical markers are acceptable. However, as someone who just deleted an article, I assure you it was not deleted for having simply copied "<Building> was constructed on <date>".--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Someone not using his real name: Thanks for bringing that to our collective attention. I have listed that file at WP:PUF and I am looking through that article to see which ones need deletion too. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am currently tagging a bunch right now down at Commons. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm commenting because I saw the notification. I'm not a WP:Copyright problems regular – I just saw a good-faith offer to restore an article that likely contained problems. Considering the article count and the possibility of bad reviews and restorations, uniform processing at WP:Contributor copyright investigations might be warranted. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

ACE 2013

FYI ACE 2013's results are over. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

request for comment user mastcell. Baby sitting articles

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.

---

So I think I have waited long enough to edit the Royal Rife page. Bio dead person . https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Royal_Rife

Lord knows mastcell has baby sat that page for years under any and every justification he can muster. Outsiders are not allowed to edit that page. He keeps the content on it the way he likes regardless of validity.

The royal rife page is supposed to be a biography about royal rife. It used to talk about him, his work, his family, It used to be a huge article with lots of well sourced references and interesting stuff. After about E-i-G-H-T *Y-E-A-Rs of sitting on it always that article looks bad.RAEL BAD. It has nearly nothing to do with the Man Royal Rife but spends two of its three paragraphs going on and on about machines attriubited to him (not real machines of his make and ownership) and how they are all junk that will harm us if we use them.... Its a dieatribe. That is what it is. A hit piece that spend as little time as possible on the man and as much time as it can discrediting an aspect of his life...the rest of Royal Rifes life is minimalized and excluded so that Barry lynes can be talked about. tsk tsk.

With novocure passing its clinical trials and being FDA approved this changes things drasticly. The novocure is the first frequency based device for the treatment of cancer. First one medically accepted at least. So their is gonna be implications on many of the medical wiki articles.

And among the biography of awesome people I had hopped for some progress on the Rife page but mastcell does not even want to address the broken links or poor citation. Alas. He had just got done blanking a whole section of talk I put up with some snide words to go with it.

He is as I alwasy fear him to be. self revolving and unwilling to even talk about change he didn't think of first. He may not say thats his page but it feels like it.

I'd love to add a referenfence to Mrs America. A boat rife built. It held world water speed records for a few years. Rife was married twice . No kids that I know of. I think he knew how to drive... I'd wanna look that up as he lived in the day when horses gave way to cars. Their is so much more to the man then just some articles on quackwatch and 10 year old AMA references... REFERENCES that have become outdated! Medical technology and understanding has EVEOLVED. ... I'd love to cite it, source it, and edit it.

He's a tag teamer too so youknow... if you watch him I fully expect J** or user Se****** to join in afterwards...

You know, I don't wanna edit war. I dont wanna cite bad stuff or poorly source , I just want to the same premission to edit a page as someone else that spends everyday here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The OP needs a WP:BOOMERANG. Zad68 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, looks that way: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novocure, where 1zeroate dismisses requests for proper sourcing for claims relating to a company providing "medical devices for the treatment of cancer" by making personal attacks on the person requesting them. Clueless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) (2nd nomination). I think we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here - accusing an IP of being a sock for no obvious reason. Clearly doesn't understand how IPs are reallocated, and immediately assumes bad faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Although my time on Wikipedia has rendered me capable of following some truly bizarre, incoherent, and conspiratorial thought patterns, I am at a loss as to the identities of my tag-team comrades "J** or user Se******". Could anyone enlighten me? And honestly, I would appreciate some outside eyes on Royal Rife, where this new editor is removing reliable sources and replacing them with {{citation needed}} tags ((e.g. [142], [143], [144], [145])) in between abusing me on the talkpage. I know Wikipedia expects me to have an infinite amount of patience with this stuff, but I'm struggling a bit. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

• Support indef for OP mainly for their inability or unwillingness to embrace Wikipedia's WP:GNG or sourcing requirements, failure to read and understand the very basic policy-based points being raised in discussions, and for compounding difficulties in attempts to communicate with them by making personal attacks, exhibiting battleground behavior, assuming bad faith, and engaging in abuse of processes. Their habit of failing to thread conversations properly or sign their own Talk edits just further aggravates things, not to mention their atrocious spelling. Wikipedia would be better off without this editor. Zad68 20:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Weird coded messages

125.67.151.34 (talk · contribs) and 58.48.243.131 (talk · contribs) have posted weird coded messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Since the two posts [146] [147] are very similar, and have the same sort of error in the header, I suspect this is the same person or group. That it is unreadable either gibberish or coded messages is concerning. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are hex color codes, not all that weird. Probably just a test edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See also commons:COM:AN#bot attack? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not hex colour codes - hexadecimal only goes up to F, but I see K and X in there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be an input method editor that isn't working so well. Both IPs geolocate to China, where typing multiple characters to get one Chinese character seems to be normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you needed a chuckle

No doubt these fools are all in the process of being beaten vigorously with cluebats, but this demonstrates (a) a total misunderstandinf of Wikipedia policy and (b) a total misunderstanding of how policy is made: http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing

Of course the last thing they actually want is a true scientific discourse. "So, Mr. Woo, where is your empirical evidence of the existence of qi?"

Oh, a mate found the website of the organisers. The derp is strong in this one! http://energypsych.org/ Guy (Help!) 20:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can only support. There should be a button to explicitly oppose a petition (a counter-petition?). Chris857 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Request block

I would like to request a block for user User:US1939. He or she is creating tons of one sentence stubs about moths and butterflies (articles I all expanded). He or she seems to think he owns the articles and keeps reverting changes I made. He is linking to disambiguation pages, as well as replacing specific stub types with a generic stub type. He is not responding to any comments made on his talk page and has now started edit-warring. Furthermore, I suspect he is using sock-puppets, since similar articles are being made by other users who appeared around the same time as US1939. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think User:I'm Shmacked is a sock-puppet account. This user is creating articles which are exactly the same in structure and both accounts are new. Furthermore, this user is also not responding to any comments on his talk page. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Doesn't this belong at WP:SPI? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry, this is the wrong page then? I'm an experienced wikipedia editor, but never requested admin intervention before, so please forgive me.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't figure out the SPI interface, just list the suspect accounts in a message on my talk page. I'll look into this tomorrow if no one else has. Going to bed right now. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I'll first post this at ANI I think, since it is not just a sock-puppet issue. If I get stuck I will let you know...! Sleep well! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

US1939 blocked for 24 hours. Simply creating stubs like this isn't necessarily a problem; you need to show that the stubs are somehow problematic by themselves, e.g. they're unsourced, badly written, etc. However, the replacement of stub tags despite your warnings is sufficient for a block. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WWE World Heavyweight Championship

This is a redirect which has been nominated for speedy deletion for uncontroversial reasons (making room for a page move) for over a day now. However, due to IP addresses continually trying to edit the article by doing copy and paste moves, the template keeps getting removed (I'm not sure if this sends it to the back of the queue). Is there an admin who can quickly delete this for me so that I can make the move? Thanks! — Richard BB 11:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

meh. I will do it as soon as it's important. Guy (Help!) 01:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

General note about closing AfD discussions

One of the scripts that several admins use to close AfD discussions is malfunctioning - for results of keep and no consensus, it will do everything required except remove the actual AfD tag from the article. While this isn't really a problem, it would be nice if any admins using scripts (and possibly even non-admin-closers; I haven't had the chance to test mine yet) could check when they do a close and see if the one they use is the culprit, and report it to the creators. Thanks, Ansh666 23:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)