Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on withdrawn arbitration case requests. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the community comments section.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear all,

Forgive me for posting these lines in the Administrators' Noticeboard, but I figured there would be no other place suitable for this that would provide the visibility I thought would be desirable. I chose the "general" area because this (thank goodness) does not require any specific Admin action.

Anyone who has not been on this project for a long, long time will probably never have seen me around. I have been absent for a long, long time. I left without previous notice or goodbyes, which is something I have always regretted. For whatever it's worth, I am sorry for that.

At one time, I held the flags of Admin (elected in 2005, if memory serves me well) and Bureaucrat on the English-language Wikipedia and Steward of the Wikimedia Foundation, in addition to having the Oversight and Checkuser permissions on the English-language Wikipedia. Since my final departure, in July of 2009, all of those flags have been removed. I support those removals completely and I have no intention of seeking to regain any of those flags.

I had intended to return to the project on several occasions exactly to relinquish the tools, since I felt I had lost the right to have them on account of having left the project and, most importantly, because I could no longer consider myself as being up-to-date with policies and going-ons, and thus could not in good conscience presume to retain the community's permission to use the tools. I noticed, however, that the permissions had been removed due to my inactivity, and since it was more than fair that they would be removed, I decided to move on.

But in all this time I never abandoned Wikipedia, at least not completely. I return to the website daily for its most precious asset: knowledge; and on occasion I read threads on the Noticeboards to try to keep a minimal understanding of the administration of the website.

I return now to say that I would like to contribute once more. Just in a different capacity. I may not have the Administrator tools anymore, but I can perhaps still help with input if it is required. The current Bcrats may also ask any help I can possibly provide... I'm not exactly Cecropia, but maybe my years of experience can still count for something positive.

Thank you all, the current Admins, Bcrats and users for keeping this project alive and well for all these years. Without your selfless dedication, Wikipedia would not be what it is now. It is an honor to rejoin you all in this project I have loved for almost 9 years now. Redux (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back.

powwow

) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome back. I wish more of the old-school admins from the "bad old days" had such a grounded perspective.

talk

) 22:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if you return without any extra bits, oldtimers in general (since I don't actually know you) tend to have more clue than the current average, and any net increase in average clue is welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! I look forward to seeing you around! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your input would definitely be welcome. We judge cases by individual merit, not the experience of the users; and in many issues, leaving Wikipedia for any length of time would still allow you to give us considerations which perhaps we wouldn't have thought of. And some times, when trying to discuss a potential change in policy, understanding its history may help us make the right decision. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Redux redux - welcome back! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Welcome back, happy editing! GiantSnowman 09:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Welcome back. It is always great to have access to someone who knows the history, and can shed light on why certain things are done this way.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bem-vindo! When you left I was already around for some time but I don't recall any interaction. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, the second of three rounds of the

About two months ago, I accepted a ban on interacting with User:Tristan noir.[6] Tristan noir volunteered the same.[7][8] I volunteered for this, because the user had been harassing/undermining me on numerous articles, and seemed to have no other purpose on Wikipedia (almost every edit the user made was to this end). I figured that if I just got him/her banned from following me around various articles, he/she would probably stop editing Wikipedia entirely, and then I could go about my normal practice of improving Wikipedia articles on (classical) Japanese literature. My assumption appeared to be correct, as once the ban was in place the user refrained from making any edits at all.

This worked until about two weeks ago, when I happened to edit[9] an article that I wasn't aware the user had also edited two months before.[10][11][12] The user almost immediately posted a message to the admin who had put the ban in place, and complained about my edit.[13] My edit had nothing whatsoever to do with his/her previous edit, and I made no indication that I was attempting to undermine his/her edit. The user, though, appears to have been watching my edits (or at least that page, although that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban) and waiting to get me blocked if I ever edited that page.

The admin sent me a warning[14] and told me that, even though the original wording of the ban had been to refrain from editing articles that the other was "working on"[15], this now applied even to edits made two months after the other party had made a minor edit to the article. I had been very clear[16][17] when I initially took the ban (I stress voluntarily) that I did not expect to be treated like I had been banned for disruptive behaviour; the admin's applying harsher restrictions on me over a month later, when I had not in fact breached the original ban, therefore seems inappropriate. I understand that the admin may have misunderstood the situation of the article in question, and it is not his/her fault in the matter.

Apparently emboldened by the belief that I would be automatically banned from ever editing an article that he/she had touched, the user then became active on Wikipedia again, and set to work making mostly minor edits to numerous (13 and counting) articles on classical Japanese literature, which is my preferred field.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] The user had previously only ever edited such articles in order to insert references to otherwise non-notable modern American poets, and as far as I can remember those articles could be counted on one hand, but he/she suddenly became highly prolific when told that I was not allowed edit any article that he/she had ever touched. When I made some edits to a couple of those articles, the user immediately told on me again[31], and I was blocked for 24 hours.[32] The admin also further emphasized the new strict restraints on my ban.[33] While it might look like I followed the user to the latter set of articles (though not the first one, so the initial warning was essentially invalid), the fact is that my edits[34][35][36] were all completely benign and did not mark an "interaction" with the user in question. They had no impact whatsoever on what he/she wrote, and in fact, one of those edits[37] was primarily made to wikilink a relevant article I had just created, and I even took care to maintain his/her prose despite it not matching the article I had started.

I requested[38] an unblock, given these circumstances, but my request was rejected by a second admin based on my having been in breach of a technicality in the interaction ban.[39] The first admin did, however, recommend that I come here to request a lift of the ban.[40]

So here I am.

I am not in any way interested in going back to "interacting" with Tristan noir. However, I need this interaction ban to be lifted (or at least lightened) so that I don't have to check every time I edit an article in my preferred field to see if he/she has edited it first, and don't have to fear getting blocked because of minor technicalities. My interaction ban was initially imposed because I asked for it, and I have since come to realize that it is having the opposite of the positive impact I expected. It is preventing me from fixing these and similar articles, and in fact allows Tristan noir much more freedom than it does me (I have no interest in going around "claiming" articles in his/her special field), despite the ban initially being proposed in order to restrain his/her activities. Most of Tristan noir's recent edits have been benign or somewhat positive. If he/she keeps up this kind of edit, I would be happy to edit the same articles as him/her in a peaceable manner; but under the current ban, I am immediately blocked every time I edit an article that Tristan noir has ever touched.

Question: as far as I am aware, interaction bans normally do not prohibit the accidental and non-controversial editing of the same articles. Why was this one interpreted/enforced in this uncommonly strict way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, but apparently it was not Tristan noir's, so when he complained about my edit to

talk

) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through contributions, I note that with the exception of Uta monogatari and two related articles, Tristan hasn't been editing pages that look like Japanese poetry until very recently. Were that not the case, your argument would collapse, but it strongly buttresses your case. Meanwhile, you're editing in topics that I can see you were doing at least as far back as 2008. More interestingly, Tristan violated the ban by editing the Mokichi Saitō after you'd done it; complaining about an interaction ban violation and immediately proceeding to do the same thing is a good indicator of lack of good faith. His request to Drmies to sanction you is a good enough warning to himself; I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating his ban. Now: why would he be aware that you'd edited these pages if he weren't watching you? And why would he begin to edit in a completely new field so suddenly? The first question means that he's not leaving you alone, and the second means that you're right about him trying to block you. For this reason, I support unbanning you but leaving his ban in place. Nyttend (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nytend's proposal, undo the topic ban on Elvenscout only, leaving the topic ban on Tristan in place. My analysis is the same, Tristan violated the ban, not Elvenscout. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing Elvenscout's interaction ban and retaining Tristan's, per Nyttend's analysis (with which I concur). I would also recommend increasing Tristan's block to indef, for
  gaming the system. Yunshui 雲‍水
  13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Nyttends proposal.
  talk
  14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Nyttend's analysis, with the admonishment to elvenscout742 to continue staying away from initiating interaction with Tristan as he/she has been doing. Zad68 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I was not made aware until now of any violation by Tristan. If I had, I would have taken the exact same action I took against Elvenscout. You'll note that the terms of the ban included not editing the same articles (not the same field) because that was part of Elvenscout's original complaint (and it's still part of his complaint--the "undermining" references). Let me add something, if I may: that the ban was voluntary, certainly on Elvenscout's part, is immaterial for the terms of the ban, but shows Elvenscout's good will (which I never doubted), and I was and am more sympathetic to their side than to Tristan's, whose good faith back in November I wasn't completely sure of, but the way the cookie crumbled at ANI, for better or for worse, was the interaction ban with no further actions taken against Tristan. (I hope I am remembering all this correctly, and EdJohnston looked over the terms of the ban as well.) If, as it appears (haven't looked at the diffs yet), Tristan broke the terms too (whether they did it first or not is immaterial) then a block is justified, of course. If I missed, somehow or somewhere, that it was brought to my attention, I am very sorry for it.

  So, if the consensus here turns out to be that Tristan is in fact hounding Elvenscout (something which I did not disagree with at the ANI thread and in conversation with Elvenscout) and their behavior is disruptive enough for an indef block, possibly a ban de facto or de jure, I have no problem with that (or with a continued injunction for Tristan to stay away from Elvenscout, and not vice versa). And let me point out, speaking of crumbling cookies, that the ANI thread could already have ended with that had more editors/admins weighed in. As it was, Anthonyhcole agreed with Elvenscout's charge, but that isn't enough in an ANI discussion to lead to such a drastic solution; the proposed and agreed-upon interaction ban was reasonable given the discussion. We've already had more admin commentary here in less than a day than we had at the ANI discussion that ran for two weeks. I could give you my thoughts on why that went the way it did, but that's mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, it looks to me as if you were fed a rather disingenuous story by Tristan — you didn't know because he didn't tell you. Another sign of bad faith and gaming the system by Tristan, it seems to me: Elvenscout is giving the whole story (I investigated and found nothing substantial that was missing or misrepresented), but Tristan gave only the tiniest threads necessary to show that a ban was violated, with nothing about what he happened to be doing or why he happened to know about Elvenscout's actions. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, Nyttend, and I wish that we had had more involvement in the ANI thread: Elvenscout had suggested to me some problems with Tristan's editing (which included a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor--don't remember the name, but I'm sure Elvenscout does, and again I hope I'm remembering this correctly) after we got to work on Tanka in English. BTW, the situation on Mokichi Saitō is not so simple since Tristan was indeed the first of the two to edit it; it was Elvenscout revert of those edits that prompted my first warning. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been avoiding further comment here to avoid jinxing it (this is the first really positive input I've had with a problem that has been bugging me since September, and I thank you all!), but I need to clarify something: My edit to

talk

) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• One-way IBANs don't work. A broad TBAN for Tristan would be a better solution. -
  Nathan Johnson (talk
  ) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• No objection to that. Whatever's the best way to un-sanction a good contributor without permitting additional disruption from a problematic one. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just for clarity's sake (if someone can do this better in terms of lay-out, go ahead and tweak). IBAN for Tristan, supported by Nyttend, GregJackP, Yunshui, Pass a Method, Zad68. Indef block for Tristan: Yunshui. TBAN for Tristan: Nathan Johnson, Nyttend. I support any unban of Elvenscout and any kind of ban for Tristan at this moment. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think if we are going to count GregJackP one way or the other, we need clarification. There seems to have been a misunderstanding, as neither of us was ever under a de jure TBAN, but my main problem now is that Tristan has been creating a de facto TBAN for me. GregJackP, though, seems to be in favour of a TBAN for Tristan.

talk

) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban as well as/instead of an IBAN; Nathan's argument makes sense. Am I really the only one angling for an indef block? God, I'm an inhuman monster... Yunshui 雲‍水 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it means anything, I'd support an indef block. Tristan noir has essentially been following me for five months now, and the only edits he ever made to Wikipedia before that were to an article he created that I can't even show you because it was blocked for being a blatant copyright violation. But honestly a poetry ban would probably work just as well, since he'll stop editing altogether once he is told he's not allowed hound me anymore.

talk

) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting of all bans on
  User:Elvenscout742 and imposing topic ban on User:Tristan noir. Nyttend's analysis looks watertight to me, and it seems clear that Tristan noir has been hounding Elvenscout742 and laying traps in the hope of either provoking an inadvertent interaction ban breach or preventing the editing of a large number of items. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk
  ) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response: My comments here may be wasted effort. It appears that Elvenscout742’s request above to modify or lift the interaction ban that we mutually volunteered to accept has now, through the zeal of various editors, been transformed into a general indictment of this user. That nine editors have cast a vote before waiting for my reply strongly suggests that any argument I offer is destined to fall upon deaf ears. I did not intend to try the patience of those present by my tardiness but my appearance was briefly delayed by my being placed under a 24 hour editing ban by Nyttend within one hour of Elvenscout’s opening of this appeal at

1) The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from

WP:IBAN

in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.”

2) Elvenscout violated these terms, as he himself admits, with an edit to Mokichi Saitō. He asserts that his edit was benign and that there was no cause for this user to complain to an administrator. What he conveniently neglects to report is that my complaint involved two edits. The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. In the past few days, Elvenscout on his talk page here, here and here might be viewed as having violated the interaction ban yet again by referencing this user by name and recycling old personal attacks against me.

3) One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. It appears that said editors are merely blindly accepting Elvenscout’s allegations at face value. The diffs I offer immediately above and below this paragraph show that if anyone is guilty of hounding or gaming, it is Elvenscout.

4) Elvenscout’s representation that I followed him “around various articles” is made without evidence. His recent 24 hour editing ban, however, came about as a result of his following me directly to five different articles, not one of which he’d edited previously, as documented in my complaint here. This is the same behavior that Elvenscout exhibited with me previously and is one of the chief reasons I volunteered to accept an interaction ban originally. Without dredging up the entire, sad history, I offer only a few examples of Elvenscout’s pre-interaction ban hounding. I attempted to disengage myself from earlier controversies with Elvenscout with an edit on Sept 18 of Haibun but was promptly tracked there by Elvenscout with this edit on Sept 21. Similarly, I offered an edit on Oct 6 of Prosimetrum but was shadowed there, within hours, by this edit of Elvenscout’s. In each instance, Elvenscout had never edited the articles previously and in each instance he engaged this user, and other participating editors, in lengthy talk-page debates that, with subsequent Rfcs and dispute resolutions initiated by him, further disrupted progress on the articles in question.

5) Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. He is entitled to his speculations, of course, but I don’t see why his idle daydreaming should be granted any particular weight in this discussion. No one is required to do more than they wish to do here at Wikipedia; all editing is voluntary.

6) Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban (and specifically Drmies’ decision that neither party was to edit an article the other editor had previously edited) somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. I’ve edited 13 articles (by Elvenscout’s count) since imposition of the interaction ban. A look at his edit history will show that he has edited considerably more. I will allow him to be his own accountant. My point, however, is that I’m thereby restricted from a much larger group of articles than is E. due to E’s prolific editing. And I am not whining about it.

7) Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind and, where editors other than Elvenscout have worked upon the same articles, I’ve had no complaints (and no controversies). No article on Wikipedia is the possession of any party, and much less does anyone hold a deed to his preferred field. Classical Japanese literature is somewhat larger, by my estimate, than a modest 13 articles and Elvenscout has room, and more than enough of it, to edit to his heart’s content.

8) Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Is seniority a factor in determining the issue here, viz., whether or not an interaction ban should be lifted or modified?

9)The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. As an aside, while Nyttend subsequently reverted my edits at Mokichi Saitō, he allowed the offending edit by Elvenscout to stand (since Elvenscout had unilaterally taken it upon himself to revert Drmies’ previous revert of the same). That, along with the timing of the block that has delayed my response, call into question Nyttend’s neutrality in this matter.

10) Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked.

If I’ve neglected anything in my comments, I’m confident that I can rely upon my old friend Elvenscout to point it out.Tristan noir (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to points where you mention me. (8) Elvenscout obviously was editing in this field before the ban, but you essentially weren't. I brought it up simply because it's part of the evidence that you're following him around and trying to get in his way. (9) You got Elvenscout blocked for editing an article you'd edited; what do you expect to happen when you edit an article he's edited? Who created the page is irrelevant; it's the fact that you're sticking to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit, a course of action that's generally seen as problematic. One final thing: I know absolutely nothing of Japanese poetry; the only reason that I got involved here was this thread. I was convinced that Elvenscout was in the right and you in the wrong, both because of Elvenscout's arguments and because I investigated and saw his statements to be true; I've never heard of either of you before, as far as I can remember, so I couldn't be biased or think better of one of you beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I see, Nyttend, how in good faith you may have misinterpreted the editing situation with respect to Mokichi Saitō and judged at that time that your 24 hour block was just. However, Drmies, with this edit two days ago, informed you that the situation with respect to that article was indeed as I described it and contrary to how Elvenscout has misrepresented the facts here. And yet you continue to impute bad faith (immediately above) to me on this score and continue to believe that the block, despite the clear history that Drmies offered you, was justified. More disturbing, however, is that you limit your comments to points I made about you and ignore the substantial evidence I provided above of Elvenscout's questionable edits and behavior.Tristan noir (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I don't know why I even need to bother at this point, since everyone present knows what's going on, but I will attempt to briefly explain TN's above misrepresentations anyway.

• • • The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.” Yes, I read it as meaning what it says: if TN "has been working on" an article, I am not allowed show up suddenly and begin editing it, which would be a clear interaction. One short series of edits several months earlier does not count as "being working on", and my making a benign edit to clean up the citations a bit does not count as an inappropriate interaction. At least in my reading.
    • The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. I didn't mention it (except in a parenthetical statement) because I felt it was irrelevant to my request to be allowed edit articles on classical Japanese literature. (Did I not say "that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban"?[43] I also provided the diff, so that anyone reading could judge TN's words for themselves.) I did, however, point out that TN's noticing my edits to completely unrelated pages indicates that he spent the two months he was not editing articles closely following my edits. The fact is that it was not a violation of an interaction ban with TN, because it was a direct response to another user who brought TN up without knowing the facts. That user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing/threatening me.
    • One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. By my count I have provided 33 diffs in my above post. TN's edit history clearly indicates that, when told he was not allowed interact with me, he stopped editing for well over a month, and his first edit upon returning was to complain about me.[44][45][46] Shortly thereafter he started editing prolifically[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87], in an area he knows I am interested in (no diffs -- just look at Talk:Uta monogatari/Archive 1 and Talk:Tanka prose for myriad examples of me showing TN my reverence for this area -- well, just the first time we interacted maybe[88]). He must also recall that I created the article on uta monogatari[89], and he recently attempted to block me from editing the article on the second most famous uta monogatari, Yamato Monogatari.[90][91][92] Why did TN suddenly become so interested in classical Japanese literature when he was told I was not allowed to edit articles that he have edited? And why, when he had only edited around 10 articles in his previous four years on Wikipedia, did he suddenly edit 13 such articles in the space of a week?
    • Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. One has to admit, it is suspicious that between August 2008 and September 2012, TN made only about 30 edits, all to the same article, then when I edited that article he suddenly started editing on an almost daily basis, interacting with me constantly, and then he suddenly stopped editing for close to two months.
    • Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban ... somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. Yes, I do. And I specify the reason. I am not interested in "claiming" articles that I am not interested just to spite TN. His actions over the last few days clearly indicate that he is. Therefore, while TN is not prohibited from editing in his favourite area (apparently modern English poetry) at all, I am currently banned from touching the 14 or so articles on Japanese literature that he has edited.
    • Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind Which other editors has TN allowed to edit? The early history of the article at Uta monogatari clearly showed (at least until it got blocked for CO violations) that while TN will allow edits he likes, he will not allow edits he doesn't like. And this post clearly indicates that he doesn't want me editing these pages, regardless of how benign my edits were. Did he intend to add a link to Tōnomine Shōshō Monogatari to the article on Fujiwara no Takamitsu himself? Or would he have allowed another user to introduce that wikilink at some time down the line (who knows how many years that could take)? What is wrong with me introducing the link immediately? Given that the previous article I created was shortly accused of being an orphan, surely it is natural to want to link the article to its most obvious partner?
    • Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Actually, I agree that seniority is not so important here. That is why I didn't point out that actually my first edit to Wikipedia under this account back in 2005 (I edited anonymously for a while) was about Japanese literature (interpreted broadly, if the Kojiki is literature). However, the fact is that TN only started editing these articles immediately upon being told that he could block me from editing them. I don't know why he thought he could get away with such blatant gaming of the system, or why he thought I would not appeal the ban under such circumstances.
    • The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. Ummm... actually, as I have stated numerous times now, my initial edit was not a violation because it was an accident. It was made two months after TN's most recent edit.[93][94] The edit that got TN blocked, however, was made nine hours after my most recent edit, and not long before he contacted Drmies making it clear that he was aware of my most recent edit and was unapologetic about editing the article nonetheless.[95][96][97]
    • Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked. I have already posted on Drmies' talk page about that. Basically, he was confusing TN's meatpuppet Kujakupoet with the now-banned user who bizarrely cited TN in a dispute I was having with him, User:JoshuSasori. Also, it might be noted that TN was clearly reading my page User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal, as he referred to it in his first edit of this year.[98] So he was clearly at least aware of my dispute with JoshuSasori.

And that, my friends, is why the previous ANI (and numerous other earlier attempts to deal with this problem) failed: TN posted a massive diatribe against me, taking various facts out of context, forcing me to respond in an equally lengthy post.[99][100][101][102][103][104] It's a good thing some good admins were able to follow this problem before this happened this time.

talk

) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And the above complaint of a “massive diatribe” from yours truly, my friends, is further evidence of Elvenscout’s hypocrisy. Read the prior ANI at your own risk and you will discover how Elvenscout can, by sheer doggedness, talk friend and foe alike to death.

Or look at the simple evidence before you here. Elvenscout has contributed eight posts and nearly 3000 words to this ANI thread. This is my third post and I’ve yet to hit the 1500 mark. True, he did have the minor advantage of a 24 hour headstart. How has he used it? To argue in self-serving fashion that Japanese literature “broadly construed” is his “preferred field” and one that others should not be allowed to trespass. One might humor his flawed logic if he were not on the verge of convincing others here that Japanese literature as broadly construed is indeed his personal possession.Tristan noir (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• My misremembering an association with a blocked editor (Elvenscout has cleared this up on my talk page already) has no bearing on this dispute: if Tristan had been associated with such an editor that wouldn't change the facts of the matter. I mentioned it to indicate that early on I was already convinced that one side in this ongoing dispute was more right than the other, not to taint the other side. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Break for convenience

Regarding the block, I don't generally see this kind of situation as an interaction worthy of a block, but in this situation, Tristan had seen it as an interaction, and since

I think that consensus was already pretty-well established. I am sure Tristan doesn't want to see me unbanned, but this isn't his decision. How does unbanning work?

talk

) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We say, "you're unbanned," and you are. Since I think I'm right in saying that all commentators so far have accepted that elvenscout should be free to edit again, I think it's safe to assume that the consensus is precisely that. You may freely edit articles on which Tristan has been working (although use your common sense and try and avoid getting into another spat with him - if you find yourself heading that way, ask for help). If anyone disagrees, this would be a good time to say so. As for Tristan, I've already said my piece, but the consensus seems to be to allow him to edit under some sort of ban - I'd propose a broadly-construed topic ban on articles relating to Japanese literature, myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems good. No one has been arguing for a narrow TBAN, but Nyttend mentioned Japanese "poetry" a few times. Banning Tristan from only poetry articles seems inappropriate, though, since of the thirteen articles I mentioned above, only three or four could possibly be taken as "poetry" articles. Japanese literature (broadly-construed) sounds like a good idea. I am also worried that without an IBAN (and I agree a one-way IBAN is problematic), Tristan might follow me to, say,

talk

) 17:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I misread what you said originally about Japanese literature, thinking that you'd said just poetry. No objections. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today, Elvenscout sought to assure Drmies here, contrary to my assertion in point 2 of my Response above, that he had never violated the interaction ban by referencing me on Wikipedia by name. His exact words there are as follows: Additionally, he has claimed that the other edit mentioned him by name: you will notice that nowhere in the prose of any past version of User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal did I use TN's name.

This is typical of the misrepresentation of fact practised by Elvenscout and is further reason why participants here should look closely at the diffs I offered in my response. Elvenscout, as I reported to Drmies in my original complaint and as I reported on this thread, did indeed violate the ban not only my mentioning me by name but by launching a personal attack here on Jan. 19. His exact words in that edit, contrary to his denial before Drmies, were: This is a reference to a dispute I had with another user, whose activities on Wikipedia were limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars. The user had also continuously worked to undermine my edits to numerous articles on Japanese poetry and art, and continuously relied on ad hominem attacks against me rather than reliable sources. The hyperlink leads the reader directly to my contributions page and the whole remark is placed conveniently, lest the reader not get Elvenscout's point, under the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir.

In a similar spirit, Elvenscout, in edits to his own talk page on Jan. 30 here, here and here, again violates the ban by referencing me directly while recycling for the thousandth time his old attacks against me.

These four instances, and the vitriol of the remarks made by Elvenscout in them, seriously call into question Elvenscout’s good faith and veracity.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, Tristan mentioned my name four times in his block appeal, so why is he allowed mention me by name and not vice versa?

talk

) 06:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked through contributions and followed links carefully, not knowing whether to trust Elvenscout or to disbelieve him because I'd never heard of you or him. This includes edits that I checked because I felt like it even though nobody had linked them; if Elvenscout were trying to frame you, I would have caught it. Yes, Elvenscout's comments are rather long, but why do you look at the speck of sawdust in Elvenscout's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to him, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from his eye. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I recognize this logion of Yeshua’s from my visits to Sunday School, Nyttend, and I will thank you for reminding me of it. We are all sinners. I wish, however, that you would address my remarks immediately above, since they, like my initial response which you seem largely to have ignored, are pertinent to any argument being made about lifting or modifying an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell me Tristan: can you demonstrate that your activities on Wikipedia were not limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars?? How would you have me respond, when another user who knows nothing of our interaction attempts to misrepresent me as a disruptive user by pointing to your negative interaction with me? Should I just ignore it?? What about when that other user is threatening my real-world career and basing it purely on a misunderstanding about my motives? Or, did I accidentally threaten your real-world career by deleting the advertisements you posted on

talk

) 00:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout, I’m sympathetic to the straights you were placed in by Joshu Sasori’s real-life threat and I agree that his indefinite block for making that threat was justified. What was not excuseable, and what was a direct violation of

WP:IBAN, was your dragging my name into your conflict with another user and, while doing so, taking the opportunity to attack me personally yet again. So, I’m sorry about your problem with the other user. Beyond that, my above comments stand.Tristan noir (talk) —Preceding undated

comment added 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As Tristan well knows from reading the page, I did not "drag his name" into anything. What he above calls "the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir" is not a sub-heading and he knows it. The page does not have original sub-headings as JoshuSasori's attack page did; it consists of a series of alternating quotations from JoshuSasori's page and my responses. The headings in the article contents are all JoshuSasori's original headings, but any other text he used has been marked as a quote. Since Tristan brought a specific edit I made to the page to the attention of Drmies, he must be aware that the code for the "sub-heading" as he calls it was "<blockquote>[[User:Tristan noir]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvenscout742#Personal_Remarks]</blockquote> ".

I have now pointed this factoid out numerous times, and yet he has persisted in honing in on it rather than focusing on the problem. This is something he engaged in on Talk:Tanka in English and numerous other pages, where he will go off on rants about the publishing industry and completely ignore the actual content of my edits.[107][108][109][110][111][112][113] THIS is why I volunteered to initiate an interaction ban with him, a ban he broke when he started closely following my edits despite not making any of his own, and when he tricked Drmies into thinking that I had reverted his edits to the article Mokichi Saitō.

Also, this discussion of whether or not I violated an interaction ban is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Consensus was already established that the interaction ban never should have applied to me because I did not make any disruptive edits, and the interaction ban has already been lifted from me. Now we are trying to disuss what should be done with Tristan noir: I therefore would like to politely ask Tristan to refrain from any further discussion of my behaviour, and instead focus on telling those present why he should not be placed under a broad TBAN for his recent pattern of disruptive behaviour. Perhaps he should start by explaining to us why he made a

spammy edits[115][116][117] to Haibun, and the now famous edits to Mokichi Saitō

, but otherwise showed no interest whatsoever in JLit until told he could block me from editing those articles and suddenly edited thirteen JLit articles in the space of a week.

I was unaware that you, Elvenscout, were directing traffic here. I thought you were merely another participant like me. Your "explanation" of your edits above, before you enter upon your Tristam Shandy-like digression, is amusing and disingenuous. Nevertheless, this discussion is open and ongoing. No one has formally closed it and no one has issued a ruling one way or the other. So, like it or not, your conduct, like my own, is open to review.Tristan noir (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since not one commentator on this discussion (which has now been open for four days) has so much as suggested that elvenscout's IBAN be retained, I stand by my earlier statement, which I reiterate here for clarity: Elvenscout is, by community consensus, no longer banned from editing pages which have previously been edited by Tristan noir. The question now is whether or not to impose a topic ban, continued one-way interaction ban, or indefinite block on Tristan noir. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban/Interaction ban/Indef block of Tristan noir

Okay. I'm summarizing the above results in a table. If I can be forgiven for reading GregJackP's initial vote as being in favour of a TBAN (since he said "topic ban" twice, and seems to have simply misread Nyttend's proposal), and taking both Nyttend and Drmies as now supporting "any of the above" (whatever the majority consensus otherwise would be), it goes as follows:

--

I have contacted GregJackP for his approval on my above interpretation. He did say he supported Nyttend's initial proposal, which was specifically an IBAN, so I guess we shouldn't count him out for an IBAN just yet. Also, can we take the TBAN topic as being "Japanese literature"?

talk

) 08:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed count myself (is this a community consensus or, being AN, an admin thing?), but I must admit to an ulterior motive for being in favour of an indef block: if Tristan noir weren't still around, this redirect could finally be dealt with. It only exists because Tristan noir unilaterally derailed an AfD, and despite his promise he has made no attempt to perform the merge that was suggested. Thanks to Drmies's fixing the page, a merge is likely no longer possible. But none of the proposed solutions (other than indef) address this minor issue.

talk

) 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment #14 (and counting) by E. to this thread. I doubt that anyone here will object, Elvenscout, to your liberal offer to count yourself in the tally. Why not add your vote (or 14 votes, if you prefer) to your table above?Tristan noir (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding in a new heading since Elvenscout has had their topic ban lifted and the discussion has moved on to a discussion of sanctions that are to be applied to Tristan noir. I have no view in this matter, just merely making the threads easier to track. Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I support a topic ban on Tristan, in the area of Japanese literature, broadly interpreted. GregJackP Boomer! 12:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Support some kind of action, elven shouldn't have to put up with nonsense, especially as elven is doing content development in an area that really requires a rare skillset on en.wp, consider my !vote to support any/all of the above. Zad68 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block. I proposed the original mutual bans because the content disputes were distracting both from content creation. The lifting of bans for Elvenscout has been well explained and dealt with. As soon as the ban was imposed, TN disappeared after only two more minor edits in early December. With no further contributions of his own (but obviously all the while keeping a close eye on E's contributions) TN suddenly re-appeared out of the blue at the end of January to report a "gotcha" breach to Drmies. There's been a spurt of editing activity since to suggest a "contribution" but I'm not convinced. The hounding alone is concerning enough. Time to shut this down and move on. Stalwart111 22:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The facts are quite simple. E and I both volunteered for an interaction ban that Stalwart111 first proposed. Further, E, as I’ve demonstrated in the diffs in my Response above, violated that ban by referencing me (and negatively) in his user’s space and on his talk page, contrary to

You hadn't made a single contribution since 9 December. On 19 January, E linked to your contributions to give a current dispute some context. A breach of the IBAN? Sure, maybe. But the very next day, you popped up again, having just happened to log back in the day after he made that edit? And you just happened to be looking through his edits? And you just happened to find the "gotcha" moment you reported? So my questions are these - how is that not hounding? And, how many times did you have to log in during that month-and-a-bit of zero edits to constantly trawl his contributions for mentions of you? Your 24-hour response time suggests at least once-a-day. But it doesn't really matter. Your wiki-stalking is far more serious and disruptive than a taken-out-of-context, context-giving link that might have breached a voluntary IBAN, in my opinion. And the other editors seem to agree, to the point where E's part of the ban has been lifted. Serious enough to finally confirm you are

WP:NOTHERE to actually build an encyclopedia in a collegial manner. Serious enough to warrant a block. Stalwart111

08:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Could some MiszaBot II guru take a look at history for AN/I archive #784, which is the current one as I write this? In these two consecutive archiving edits, MiszaBot appears to have duplicated itself, i.e. added the same three AN/I threads to the archive, so that they are currently represented there twice. Many thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Misza Guru is found here: User talk:Misza13 NE Ent 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the bot got interrupted between step one (copy content to archive) and step two (remove from ANI). Not a big deal, I've reverted the second archiving. NE Ent 03:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ent! You're the best. Why aren't you an admin, btw? You'd sail through, and I expect half the admins ( or more ) on this board would be willing to nominate you. I'm not an admin, either. I'm far too sporadic in my editing for one thing, and I've edited in a very controversial topic area, which would certainly sink me, if I were to attempt it. --OhioStandard (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)*/

Because he doesnt want to be ;) Personally I think we should take the Pope route and elect him 'Admin by Acclamation' and his wishes on the matter be disregarded. (Just kidding Ent!) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree; I hear the roar! Besides, who cares what he wants? ;-) It's not like he'd be forced to actually use the tools ... but I bet he would use them, once he had them. That was one of the funniest edit summaries I've seen in a good long while, too. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was browsing the net rather lazily when I found this piece of article here in a personal blog that I think people should check once. It deals with Wikipedia's mismanagement of the RFP/C page. People, I ask you to give suggestions and opinions on what could be done. Thanking you, Wiki4Blog 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting. I wouldn't suggest "any admin", though, I'd suggest guiding them to a category (like we do for RevDel) of administrators with an interest in that particualr kind of request, presumably admins that would somewhat self-select for availability and newcomer-friendliness. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly interesting except that I am pretty sure this user just

talk

) 19:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that my RFP/C was accepted in under 20 minutes. (I'd been working heavily in RCP, and AIV had been protected due to some IP-hopping troll.) So, clearly it's not an entirely useless process. That said, from an editor retention point of view, I think that there are definitely some processes here frequented by newcomers that are rather confusingly run. (

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

13:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, I couldn't read the blog from here due to filtering, but found another way to read it. What a load of bollocks. Not just bollocks, but huge festering bollocks. I patrol RFP/C regularly (as in: multiple times a day), as do a few other admins. How "credible" is the blogger when they don't say that? I'm also the one who designed the {{
  BWilkins←✎
  ) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone involved was unnecessarily rude, but further discussion is only producing more heat than light. No action is likely to come from this nor is any block warranted. Perhaps all the involved parties should go have a tea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I reverted an uncivil and uncalled for message from Fram on Kumioko's talk page ("Of course, you have long ceased to be a productive editor, but why let reality get in the way of rhetorics?"). talk page history. Kumioko is "retired" and is editing from an IP. Fram reverted. I reverted again and left a message at Fram's talk page. Fram reverted with a the comment "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here" and left a message at my talk page.

Fram's comment to Kumioko is obvious trolling and is a derogatory comment, which can be removed per

WP:RUC. Fram's comments to me to Fuck off is also uncalled for. Fram being an admin makes this even worse. Bgwhite (talk

) 09:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Demiurge1000 has since reverted Fram's edit on Kumioko's talk page and also left a note at Fram's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Fram's comments were inappropriate. For the record, Kumioko and I have not gotten along, but Fram should not have left those derogatory comments regardless. --Rschen7754 10:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, as I noted on Fram's talk page, it's Fram's comment "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room" that I personally consider to qualify as "derogatory" as listed in

talk

) 10:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, quite a neutral comment there. "another editor that Fram has apparently succeeded in driving from the project." No, it was Kumioko's block (under his previous account) and his failed RfA that drove him off the project, basically; neither of which I had anything to do with. But please, feel free to list the other editors I "succeeded in driving from the project".

Fram (talk

) 10:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, how can it be "grave-dancing" if it is a reply to a comment the editor made about me today? Please stick to the facts.

Fram (talk

) 10:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Below you say "Kumioko was blocked for making a personal attack about me", but here you think you don't have anything to do with him "retiring"? Facts, we've certainly heard of them. --

talk

) 12:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Hey Bgwhite, you know, you are an admin as well! You could have followed WP:RUC and come to my talk page to discuss things, instead of just removing my comment from someone else's talk page. Or you could have checked the background a bit, and have seen that my comments were rather accurate. Kumioko has changed from a productive editor into an time-wasting but otherwise ineffective (and often inadvertently quite hilarious) troll.

Over the last few weeks, Kumioko has accused me of harassing an editor, tried to get an interaction ban between me and Rich farmbrough (swiftly closed), and started 4 AfDs on articles I created (all speedily kept). All quite funny, but even the best jokes can get tiresome if they continue for too long. What directly lead to the current situation is the discussion about what to do with Richard Arthur Norton, with the pending ArbCom case I started. Since I wille be offline for the next week (starting tomorrow), I created User:Fram/RAN evidence. You can see the note I put at the top of that page and judge whether creating such a page is acceptable or not. Kumioko felt the need to jump into the middle of the Richard Arthur Norton discussion and post (as an IP, without disclosing who he actually was as an editor): [118]. This is basic trolling and harassment, but I didn't feel the need to waste the time of AN (or another venue) with such rather pathetic attempts, instead giving Kumioko a mild version of what he deserved on his talk page instead. Some editors clearly fail to see the whole picture, so here we are.

But since we are now here, and we can't have an AN section without some admin action being called for (what admin action did you want, Bgwhite?), I would propose that Kumioko (and his IPs obviously) is indef blocked for trolling, and/or topic banned from commenting on me. IF more diffs are neede for this, just ask and I'll provide!

Fram (talk

) 10:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge doesn't like Fram. Fram doesn't like Demiurge. Okay. Unless you two want to kiss and make up, I don't see this portion of the discussion going anywhere. —  (Je vous invite à me parler) 13:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bgwhite is an administrator? You should count yourself lucky then, Fram. If Bgwhite went by the same approach you do in handing out blocks to people you've disagreed with, they wouldn't have needed to revert your personal attack and post to your talk page - they could've just gone right ahead and blocked you instead. -- talk ) 10:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Demiurge, you are getting way out of line here. Can you please post any evidence of my approach of "handling out blocks to people you've disagreed with"? Accusing me of violating Fram (talk ) 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Sure thing, Fram. Here is a diff to my second comment in opposition to your ultimately unsuccessful attempt to get User:LauraHale banned from DYK; on 6 November 2012. Here is a diff of your deciding to block me on an unrelated matter two weeks later (a block which at least two uninvolved admins said was unnecessary). And then here is a diff where, about two weeks later again, you bring up that block as a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to review, oh, surprise surprise, a DYK nomination by, surprise surprise, User:LauraHale. (A nomination which you at least twice tried to get marked as failed.) If your block was nothing to do with the disagreement over LauraHale's DYK nominations, why would you bring up the block in that context only a couple of weeks later? Now, should you be blocked for your personal attacks, or should we start looking at other ways to curb your abuse of your administrator privileges that were so wisely conferred upon you in 2007 with a few dozen "per nom" and "looks good to me" comments? -- talk ) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) At the time of the block, no, I did not remember that you had opposed a proposal I made. That block was upheld by multiple admins (one of the admins that disagreed with it, Fluffernutter, later changed his mind, see the "ETA" post he made afterwards; I see no other admin disagreeing with the block there. Full discussion at [119]. But I block so few editors that at the time of the second discussion, I clearly remembered having blocked you. But thanks for pointing out that your reversal of my comments on Kumioko's talk page, and your comments here, are not really observations by an unbiased outsider... Fram (talk ) 12:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC) So this is a cute reversal of the Mbz1 strategy, is it? If you block enough people that disagree with you, then you can discount their opinions as "not really observations by an unbiased outsider" whenever your abuse is exposed? You haven't explained why you felt it appropriate to raise the subject of the block in a discussion about a completely unrelated content issue two weeks later, if the block was (so you'd have us believe) nothing to do with a dispute about that same issue that occurred two weeks prior to it. -- talk ) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Again: when I blocked you, I didn't recognise your name as someone I had been in a dispute with (I recognised your name, but your involvement in the LauraHale topic ban discussion didn't specifically register). At the later DYK discussion, I recognised your name as that of someone I had recently blocked though (I still didn't seem to remember it as someone who had also opposed the LauraHale topic ban, judging from that discussion). The reason you came to that DYK review seemed to be solely to oppose my view and to start attacking me ("Sorry, but DYK is not Fram's personal playground. And my apologies to Crisco (and anyone else involved) for my accidentally implying any complicity with, or support for, the mudslinging.") Note that after you approved the hook over my objections, other (unbiased) editors came along, and agreed with me: Fram (talk ) 13:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC) No, actually the nomination was ultimately promoted despite your failing it twice. Why is it that you have the right to malign other editors' motives, but if someone questions your motives, we're treated to this ridiculous whining? It's really stretching credulity to imagine that we'd disagreed over DYK several times within a period of a few weeks but you "still didn't seem to remember" any of it. -- talk ) 13:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I can only give my take on this, I can't make you believe it. I am not in the habit of storing the names of all people who oppose me at one time or another for future revenge. I would need to block many more people than just you in that case. No, you didn't register as someone who I had a conflict with. Fram (talk ) 13:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, this is serious. I know there are conflicts between Fram and Kumioko. There is an escalation which some may say it's uncalled and some may not. For me the most important is that Bgwhite correctly removed the comment and even if he was wrong the use of expressions like "Fuck off" is really unacceptable. Fram, please

WP:CALM. -- Magioladitis (talk

) 10:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of unacceptable,

Fram (talk

) 10:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you rather that I have blocked you instead? I recall another very prominent and recent case where an edit summary using the same phrase was revdeled by an arbitrator. --Rschen7754 11:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall it, and if it was truly comparable to this one, then it was also wrong. And blocking someone for saying "fuck off" is rather an overreaction, don't you think (since that's the only thing you revdeled, I suppose that's the worst thing I did)? Of course, some people here are much quicker to react to clear but limited uncivility than to civil but incorrect personal attacks like Demiurge's statements, but that regretful state of affairs is nothing new.

Fram (talk

) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You and I both know that I largely do not approve of Kumioko's actions, but that does not justify incivility on your part. --Rschen7754 11:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But incivility is not a reason to revdel edit summaries.

Fram (talk

) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to the note left on my talk page about this discussion. I just wanted to clarify that I have made a couple of edits since my "Wikibreak/Retirement" and wanted to clarify. I still intend to "retire" but that doesn't mean that I will never edit anymore. Only that I intend it to be infrequent at best and likely not as my username or as an active participant in the community. I have made about 8 edits as I recall. A couple on my userpage with my retirement (that's 2), 2 on the RAN discussion, 2 more as an IP to fix a couple of minor typos on articles I found when reading, and I think 2 more on my talk page regarding being accused of edits that I did not do. Other than that nothing. Aside from that I suspect my opinions on Fram's contributions in Wikipedia are likely the same as his are of mine. I will respond if someone has a direct question of me but other than that I will let this AN play out however it results. Two more small note. Fram was not the main reason I left but was a contributing factor and in response to Fram's comments above regarding my edits as an IP. At this point, I have absolutely zero chance of not being "identified" as an IP or otherwise. Although there is the occassional false positive I have no delusions on that my edits are easily identified as me. Anyone who clicks the contribs of this IP will clearly see that so there is no intention of "hiding" my edits as an IP and zero chance that would be possible anyway. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko

• On 19 January, Kumioko was blocked for making a personal attack about me[120]
• On 21 January, he posted to my talk page[121] a section "Stop harassing other editors you don't agree with", regarding one unproblematic post I made to the talk page of a user I hadn't interacted with before (or since).
• The same day, he started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#Recommend discussing an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough, wit has only diff the same "harassing" post mentioned above. It was snow closed the same day.
• On 28 January, he again comes to my talk page to start a new section[122] on "Unsourced biographies". After I pointed out that they weren't unsourced and thus didn't need that fix, Kumioko proceeded to file 4 AfDs, contrary to our deletion policies (even if they needed fixing: if they can be fixed, they shouldn't be deleted). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan George Freezen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Freese, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Frederich and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Freudweiler were all speedily kept. He then asks for his account to be blocked, and starts a self-enforced wikibreak.
• On 30 January, he IP edits to make a comment on my talk page: [123]
• His next edits are about CBM (another target of his frustration), and then today he joins the discussion on Richard Arthur Norton; [124], calling a perfectly appropriate page I have created a "smear blog". See
  WP:UP#POLEMIC, read the header of User:Fram/RAN evidence
  and consider whether it is a normal, appropriate page or a "smear blog".

Can something be done to stop this please? Nothing useful has come out of any of this, and it is getting rather boring.

Fram (talk

) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you (politely) asked him not to post on your talk page? --

talk

) 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If Kumioko's activities were confined to Fram's talk page that might be an option. Even Kumioko recognises his activity here is being disruptive, hence his 'retirement'. The problem is he isnt actually retiring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification I didn't retire because I felt my editing was a problem or disruptive. I retired more because the things I am interested in doing are unavailable to me. Also because after three years of trying to make WikiProject US work, I found that too many editors want to protect their own swim lanes than to collaborate to build an encyclopedia. As well as a relatively small cadre of editors who seem to be more interested in tearing things apart or preventing things from being done than actually building anything (disclaimer: Statement not targeted specifically at Fram). So there is no reason to stay and continue to edit. My edits may "seem" disruptive because I have in the last few months focused on problem areas and editors whom I felt were a problem, some of which are admins. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

He's certainly not the only editor who "retires" then keeps on editing.

As for activities outside Fram's talk page, what do we have that's such a serious problem? A suggested interaction ban that's roundly rejected, three AfD nominations that were not quite within policy, and a misguided comment about his opinions of a page created by Fram? Pass the popcorn. --

talk

) 12:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the combination of activities on and off my talk page, obviously. And "were not quite within policy" is quite an understatement. Basically, the only thing he does at the moment is wasting the time of other editors.

Fram (talk

) 12:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And why is it that edit-warring on his talk page is a good way of dealing with someone "wasting time"? Doesn't edit-warring tend to waste more time? --

talk

) 12:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I have now proposed a better way to deal with it.

Fram (talk

) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Telling anyone to fuck off (admin to user, user to admin, admin to admin....so on.... ) is unacceptable. Civility is policy, no one is exempt nor can they exempt themselves from it. Further, you're still acting incivil throughout this discussion.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We really need to get that changed, as the reality is actually that 'Civility is policy badly enforced depending on who is doing the blocking and who is being blocked.'Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, I know that I shouldn't have told him/her to fuck off. Discussing things first, instead of twice reverting me before even starting to discuss things with me, can have that effect on people who are already tired of the antics of another user though. Neither Bgwhite nor me handled this in the best possible way (and my way was probably worse). Getting someone like Demiurge, who seems to see this as his chance to get revenge for being blocked a few months ago, joining the circus doesn't help to calm things of course. But where have I been incivil throughout this discussion? I think I have been rather restrained here, discussing things frankly but without incivility. Please indicate which replies (or parts) here you consider incivil, so that I can reflect on them.

Fram (talk

) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right, Only in death. If a non-admin used that fuck off edit summary while edit-warring on someone else's talk page to re-insert a personal attack, they'd find themselves blocked in an instant. But no-one has the guts to deal with Fram because they know very well what would ultimately follow. --

talk

) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, what would actually "ultimately follow"? Apart from that: blocking people depends on what they do, and on the circumstances. Perhaps I haven't been blocked because people tend to look at the circumstances as well, and not because they are afraid of me. I doubt that many admins here really are that frightened of what I might "ultimately" do.

Fram (talk

) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The "circumstances" are very clear. A non-administrator would've been blocked for that, no two ways about it. You should be held to the same standards you take such glee in seeing imposed on others. --

talk

) 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For someone complaining about incivility, you certainly aren't giving the best example. "Glee"? Where do you get that idea? As for whether non-admins would be blocked, I'll give you an example I was involved with recently: at

Fram (talk

) 13:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)You can look at e.g.

Fram (talk

) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion is not constructive. Fram made a strong comment on Kumioko's talk page. It's not clear to me that it was even uncivil, but I suppose, given the all-over-the-place interpretations of civility at Wikipedia, some might think it was. Bgwhite reverted. In my view, he shouldn't have, but it's not the worst revert I've ever seen. Fram restored his comment. At that point, any further battling on the talk page should have ceased. Bgwhite should not have reverted yet again. He should have taken it to Fram's talk page, which he did, but after his second reversion, and if he still felt Fram was wrong, he could have then come here. Then Fram reverted again with the later-deleted edit summary (that everyone knows about anyway from this discussion). He, too, should not have insisted and left it alone, sought input from others, whatever, but the edit-warring was inappropriate. Finally, as long as I'm expressing my opinion on two admins, I might as well add another. Rschen should not have rev/del'ed the edit summary. Most important: This discussion should be closed, and, as an uninvolved admin, I'm tempted to do so now as I think it will only get worse, but I need to go to work, so I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I basically agree with all your points, but would prefer to hear some further uninvolved comments about the underlying issue (Kumioko and me, that is). But don't worry, I'll not edit war if the next person decides to close this instead :-)
    Fram (talk
    ) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments here are rapidly descending down the

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

route. As I stated in this thread some hours ago, the particular part of your personal attack on the other editor that I found especially problematic, was "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room". Making comments like that while talking about him getting blocked (something which you also do elsewhere as discussed earlier), yes, makes it sound that you're taking some rather unprofessional pleasure in this sort of thing. The question is how that should be addressed.

(Digging out an incident where an editor made a comment about a statement - not about a person - and didn't get blocked, and comparing it with your atrocious behaviour in this incident, is completely irrelevant.) --

talk

) 13:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• My advice to Fram is to walk away from this conflict before he gets himself in any more trouble. Sometimes it's best to say "mistakes were made" and find something less controversial to occupy oneself with. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Fram asked for comment before the archive and I was drafting this before the archive: Fram has escalated a personal dispute and has dragged others into it. The aim should be to avoid the personal, even in the face of bad acts from the the other side (as that leads to deescalation and hangs the bad acts where they belong -- don't get in the way of that).Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Backlog at WP:RM

Hello.

There is a huge backlog at

WP:RM

. Would an admin – or a rather dozen – please give it some attention.

Alternatively, is it ok if the proposing editor himself/herself closes the RM by removing the request and performing the move(s) himself/herself? Provided, of course, that there is some kind of consensus to move.

Thanks

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, you can close anything that has unanimous agreement and has been open for at least seven days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

New users prefixed "NJIT HUM"

I've noticed several edits by different users prefixed "NJIT HUM", such as this one by User:‎NJIT HUMKMA, this one by User:‎NJIT HUMRodjFlores and another one by User:NJIT HUMhyd2 that have been made over the past day to a number of New Jersey-related articles. At first I thought that this might be a series of sockpuppets, but it seems that the most likely explanation is that these are people (perhaps students) affiliated with the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) in Newark, New Jersey who are taking a humanities course and have an assignment to edit Wikipedia, starting with articles about schools and places that they might be familiar with. There seems to be no problem whatsoever with any of the edits I have seen -- one of the edits was reverted, but the change had been correct -- and this may well be a useful way to introduce editors to the encyclopedia. Is there any way to track down who is behind these new editors, though I could just see if email access id set up for these folks? Any thoughts on using this as a model, where college students are asked to edit articles for their high school or hometown as a way to broaden participation by a group of people likely to be responsible and thorough in their editing? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Should probably let these guys know about this.
  talk
  ) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and left a notice linking to this discussion.
    talk
    ) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There's also WP:Education noticeboard for these things. I'd suggest leaving it be for now, and just a note on every talkpage that says something like "Please have your professor come to our IRC channel (wikipedia-en-help) for some help with his course before you continue editing". If any of them look like they're being disruptive, block until their professor gets it sorted out. Just my POV. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am personally opposed to ever doing anything that suggests anyone is required to use IRC instead of on-wiki communication or email.

talk

) 21:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. gwickwire is right that

WP:ENB is the best place to report this kind of thing now. We also have {{welcome student}} and {{welcome teacher}} that you can use to welcome students and/or teachers for classes that don't seem to be organized on-wiki.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk

) 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If there's no problem with the editing, there's no problem with the accounts. The professor should be directed to any one of the various Education outreach programs like Wikipedia:School and university projects but there isn't any reason we'd want to discourage such usage. These students may need extra help and guidance, and having the professor coordinate with Wikimedia's own outreach teams is very useful, but ultimately these accounts aren't breaking any rules, and we needn't get all in a tizzy over the account naming issue. --Jayron32 21:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I only meant IRC due to the fact that this professor is most likely on a deadline for his syllabus, and therefore will more than likely not want to wait for a response from the EN people. There's a few of us in wikipedia-en-help that can help him understand why going through the ENB would be better, and would help him tremendously. We could also help him set up his pages. I feel it's highly unlikely that unless he's talking with a live person (IRC most likely) he will ask his students to stop while he gets a course page set up. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of the feedback and suggestions. If I thought that something untoward was going on, I'd have posted this to ANI. I came here because I agree that this appears to be a positive for Wikipedia and just wondered how best to approach this and make the most of what can be a very good situation. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, all the edits by this group of users can be tracked with the gadget "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges ..." (which also allows wildcard searches of usernames based on their prefix) and this link. Graham87 14:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's all great, but no one had of yet actually pasted those welcome messages on those pages (are we just talk here?). Graham, I can't do that fancy footwork of yours, and since the accounts have made no other edits I can't figure out who the teacher might be. As a side note, we might never find out; these accounts may never edit again (one of the edits was reverted summarily without explanation or even a template on the user's talk page) if the assignment was "make one edit to improve an article". Drmies (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Alansohn left me a nice note, which prompted me to add something to the student welcome template--"*Please ask your instructor to drop by at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_users_prefixed_.22NJIT_HUM.22, so we can help them if they need any assistance. Again, thanks for your contributions!" Again, I doubt that much will come of it, but I suppose we gotta start somewhere. Sage, or anyone else, if you can think of a better place to send them (and I'm sure there's better places than AN, but I'm not sure which Education page would be best) feel free to stick that in there. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidonia von Bork die Klosterhexe by Wilhelm Meinhold

I have transcribed from the Frakturschrift and re-published on the web the original 1847-8 German text of Wilhelm Meinhold's novel Sidonia von Bork die Klosterhexe. Incredibly, it appears to be on some kind of blacklist. It is a great novel and deserves to be more widely read in the original. Can you explain why wikipedia will not display the link to the novel?Shirley49 (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For future reference — this kind of question is better asked at the

template. Be very careful with your coding; nobody will complain at you for using the wrong coding (it's not prohibited), but the software will do surprising things unless you type everything correctly. Nyttend (talk

) 23:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It now seems to work. I'm new to this so I expect to make plenty more mistakes until I have learnt all the procedures. Shirley49 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Some deletion work to do

I think the Hungary nominations here can all be deleted under G5. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorted. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, almost. I have to go offline for a short while, if someone else could close the remaining discussions, I'd be grateful. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Um I may be missing something here but those cats were not created by a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban, and therefore are not eligible for G5... GiantSnowman 11:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Crapola. You're right, GS; the categories weren't created by a sock, and I'm due a slap on the wrist for failing to check first. I will willingly restore the pages if asked, but given that the parent project Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary was deleted (correctly) under G5, there seems to be no purpose served by doing so; which is why I'm not going to reverse the action on my own initiative. Trout me if you wish, I deserve it. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Friday is fish day, after all ;) - they're not eligible for G5 but one could argue G8 seeing as the parent project has been deleted...? GiantSnowman 12:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the error! I assumed from what the nom had written that they were eligible for G5. Whatever the case, it wasn't worth wasting our time with them at CFD. Thanks for your help. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit notices?

Category:Political scandals in Canada and its sub-cats. They have BLP and various other articles that are not scandals, but do contain scandal or controversy sections. Could properly worded edit notices help keep the wrong articles out, or just re-name to articles containing material that some consider a scandal?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with editnotices for this purpose is that people almost never edit the categories themselves; you'd never see the editnotice on a category when you're editing an article to put it into that category. You'd have to remove the category from articles and perhaps place a <!-- comment --> next to the categories reminding people not to put the scandals categories back because these articles aren't about scandals. If you see people continually adding non-scandals to the scandals categories, it might be good to have editnotices created for the articles themselves. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

...here. I may take the time but I haven't lived in that province since 1998. If there is a wp:B.C. then they may deal with it. wp:Canada doesn't seem to care. I will rem the blp articles for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible IP sockpuppetry on User:Bongwarrior's user page?

PROTECTED

Bongwarrior has protected their user page NE Ent 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Could you look into User:Bongwarrior's user page, please? I've been noticing a number of IP addresses doing the same thing - removing content from his talk page, and the content replaced is the same thing. I suspect IP socking going on, so I'd like an admin to look into this. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 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.

Afzal Guru

Can a admin please consider the

_{talk to me}

07:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The Puppy has done the needy.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 nor'easter

There is a heated debate going on over at

Talk:February 2013 nor'easter reguarding the article's name, is there an uninvolved admin that can intervene? Or possibly close the move request until a Common Name is reached? - Knowledgekid87 (talk

) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere, just in circles. There is no consensus in the move request and I don't see one forming anytime soon (if you want votes, it is currently 11-10 in favor of those who are opposed to the move). United States Man (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

indian castes and CSD:A1

Hello, been away for a while, need 2nd opinion. I declined to speedy

Komati Caste. Looks like no context does not apply, but sometimes it's better to ask, etc. Dlohcierekim

03:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's nowhere near being an A1, good decline. Courcelles 06:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Dlohcierekim 14:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Not A1 but it needs some important fixing. I'd suggest somehow moving the content to replace that at

WP:V. I can sort out sources for the content of the declined CSD when I'm back editing properly - I'm User:Sitush, currently using someone else's PC. Mail me using the link on the Sitush userpage if you need confirmation. Thanks.--2.219.218.79 (talk

) 16:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've just restored the redirect that was at

Komati Caste to that title over the redirect then that's fine by me, and I can dig into it further when I am back on my feet. My suspicion is that the redirect is correct and there is some POV-pushing/forking going on but I'm not in a great place at the moment to follow through on that.--2.219.218.79 (talk

) 16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone also needs to remove the sole section at

Talk:Komati Caste because it seems to be extensive copyright violation close paraphrasing. I can't do it because a filter kicks in when I edit as an IP.--2.219.218.79 (talk

) 17:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy close

FMPP'ed due to move-warring during discussion; I will decline the speedy close request, but will urge for discussion to continue. I have closed the unnecessary MRV and converted the existing discussion into an actual RM, which should've been done initially IMO. :) ·

✉

08:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to request a speedy close for this discussion. 5 editors support the move while only 1 is opposed.

talk

04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't "require permission" to create things in the "Wikipedia" space -- It doesn't need a speedy close, it needs an admin move back over the redirect -- there was no justification for St. Anselm to unilaterally move it out of Wikipedia space -- if they felt it was inappropriate they can Mfd it. NE Ent 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, if a move is reverted it should be discussed. I based my objection on Category:Wikipedia essays, which says "User essays may be moved categorically into the Wikipedia namespace and this category if they are frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors." Clearly, that is not yet the case with this essay. In any case, I don't want the essay deleted - I just think it should stay in user space. Actually, it survived an MfD discussion a while ago, and many of the keep !votes were predicated on it being in user space. But this is the discussion we should have been having on the essay's talk page. I presented these arguments, and no-one has responded to them. StAnselm (talk) 04:41, 10 February 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 don't care about the essay one way or the other, but this is setting a dangerous precedent -- if you don't like another user's Wikipedia: space just unilaterally move it into their userspace without going through the normal move process. Move requests are used for intranamespace moves, not internamespace moves. NE Ent 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for

interaction ban

-lift

This is an extensive discussion, and this decision is based both on that discussion and the behavior of one of the parties before and during this thread.

BWilkins←✎

) 12:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

About two months ago, I accepted a ban on interacting with User:Tristan noir.[129] Tristan noir volunteered the same.[130][131] I volunteered for this, because the user had been harassing/undermining me on numerous articles, and seemed to have no other purpose on Wikipedia (almost every edit the user made was to this end). I figured that if I just got him/her banned from following me around various articles, he/she would probably stop editing Wikipedia entirely, and then I could go about my normal practice of improving Wikipedia articles on (classical) Japanese literature. My assumption appeared to be correct, as once the ban was in place the user refrained from making any edits at all.

This worked until about two weeks ago, when I happened to edit[132] an article that I wasn't aware the user had also edited two months before.[133][134][135] The user almost immediately posted a message to the admin who had put the ban in place, and complained about my edit.[136] My edit had nothing whatsoever to do with his/her previous edit, and I made no indication that I was attempting to undermine his/her edit. The user, though, appears to have been watching my edits (or at least that page, although that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban) and waiting to get me blocked if I ever edited that page.

The admin sent me a warning[137] and told me that, even though the original wording of the ban had been to refrain from editing articles that the other was "working on"[138], this now applied even to edits made two months after the other party had made a minor edit to the article. I had been very clear[139][140] when I initially took the ban (I stress voluntarily) that I did not expect to be treated like I had been banned for disruptive behaviour; the admin's applying harsher restrictions on me over a month later, when I had not in fact breached the original ban, therefore seems inappropriate. I understand that the admin may have misunderstood the situation of the article in question, and it is not his/her fault in the matter.

Apparently emboldened by the belief that I would be automatically banned from ever editing an article that he/she had touched, the user then became active on Wikipedia again, and set to work making mostly minor edits to numerous (13 and counting) articles on classical Japanese literature, which is my preferred field.[141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153] The user had previously only ever edited such articles in order to insert references to otherwise non-notable modern American poets, and as far as I can remember those articles could be counted on one hand, but he/she suddenly became highly prolific when told that I was not allowed edit any article that he/she had ever touched. When I made some edits to a couple of those articles, the user immediately told on me again[154], and I was blocked for 24 hours.[155] The admin also further emphasized the new strict restraints on my ban.[156] While it might look like I followed the user to the latter set of articles (though not the first one, so the initial warning was essentially invalid), the fact is that my edits[157][158][159] were all completely benign and did not mark an "interaction" with the user in question. They had no impact whatsoever on what he/she wrote, and in fact, one of those edits[160] was primarily made to wikilink a relevant article I had just created, and I even took care to maintain his/her prose despite it not matching the article I had started.

I requested[161] an unblock, given these circumstances, but my request was rejected by a second admin based on my having been in breach of a technicality in the interaction ban.[162] The first admin did, however, recommend that I come here to request a lift of the ban.[163]

So here I am.

I am not in any way interested in going back to "interacting" with Tristan noir. However, I need this interaction ban to be lifted (or at least lightened) so that I don't have to check every time I edit an article in my preferred field to see if he/she has edited it first, and don't have to fear getting blocked because of minor technicalities. My interaction ban was initially imposed because I asked for it, and I have since come to realize that it is having the opposite of the positive impact I expected. It is preventing me from fixing these and similar articles, and in fact allows Tristan noir much more freedom than it does me (I have no interest in going around "claiming" articles in his/her special field), despite the ban initially being proposed in order to restrain his/her activities. Most of Tristan noir's recent edits have been benign or somewhat positive. If he/she keeps up this kind of edit, I would be happy to edit the same articles as him/her in a peaceable manner; but under the current ban, I am immediately blocked every time I edit an article that Tristan noir has ever touched.

talk

) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: as far as I am aware, interaction bans normally do not prohibit the accidental and non-controversial editing of the same articles. Why was this one interpreted/enforced in this uncommonly strict way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, but apparently it was not Tristan noir's, so when he complained about my edit to

talk

) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through contributions, I note that with the exception of Uta monogatari and two related articles, Tristan hasn't been editing pages that look like Japanese poetry until very recently. Were that not the case, your argument would collapse, but it strongly buttresses your case. Meanwhile, you're editing in topics that I can see you were doing at least as far back as 2008. More interestingly, Tristan violated the ban by editing the Mokichi Saitō after you'd done it; complaining about an interaction ban violation and immediately proceeding to do the same thing is a good indicator of lack of good faith. His request to Drmies to sanction you is a good enough warning to himself; I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating his ban. Now: why would he be aware that you'd edited these pages if he weren't watching you? And why would he begin to edit in a completely new field so suddenly? The first question means that he's not leaving you alone, and the second means that you're right about him trying to block you. For this reason, I support unbanning you but leaving his ban in place. Nyttend (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nytend's proposal, undo the topic ban on Elvenscout only, leaving the topic ban on Tristan in place. My analysis is the same, Tristan violated the ban, not Elvenscout. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing Elvenscout's interaction ban and retaining Tristan's, per Nyttend's analysis (with which I concur). I would also recommend increasing Tristan's block to indef, for
  gaming the system. Yunshui 雲‍水
  13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Nyttends proposal.
  talk
  14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Nyttend's analysis, with the admonishment to elvenscout742 to continue staying away from initiating interaction with Tristan as he/she has been doing. Zad68 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I was not made aware until now of any violation by Tristan. If I had, I would have taken the exact same action I took against Elvenscout. You'll note that the terms of the ban included not editing the same articles (not the same field) because that was part of Elvenscout's original complaint (and it's still part of his complaint--the "undermining" references). Let me add something, if I may: that the ban was voluntary, certainly on Elvenscout's part, is immaterial for the terms of the ban, but shows Elvenscout's good will (which I never doubted), and I was and am more sympathetic to their side than to Tristan's, whose good faith back in November I wasn't completely sure of, but the way the cookie crumbled at ANI, for better or for worse, was the interaction ban with no further actions taken against Tristan. (I hope I am remembering all this correctly, and EdJohnston looked over the terms of the ban as well.) If, as it appears (haven't looked at the diffs yet), Tristan broke the terms too (whether they did it first or not is immaterial) then a block is justified, of course. If I missed, somehow or somewhere, that it was brought to my attention, I am very sorry for it.

  So, if the consensus here turns out to be that Tristan is in fact hounding Elvenscout (something which I did not disagree with at the ANI thread and in conversation with Elvenscout) and their behavior is disruptive enough for an indef block, possibly a ban de facto or de jure, I have no problem with that (or with a continued injunction for Tristan to stay away from Elvenscout, and not vice versa). And let me point out, speaking of crumbling cookies, that the ANI thread could already have ended with that had more editors/admins weighed in. As it was, Anthonyhcole agreed with Elvenscout's charge, but that isn't enough in an ANI discussion to lead to such a drastic solution; the proposed and agreed-upon interaction ban was reasonable given the discussion. We've already had more admin commentary here in less than a day than we had at the ANI discussion that ran for two weeks. I could give you my thoughts on why that went the way it did, but that's mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, it looks to me as if you were fed a rather disingenuous story by Tristan — you didn't know because he didn't tell you. Another sign of bad faith and gaming the system by Tristan, it seems to me: Elvenscout is giving the whole story (I investigated and found nothing substantial that was missing or misrepresented), but Tristan gave only the tiniest threads necessary to show that a ban was violated, with nothing about what he happened to be doing or why he happened to know about Elvenscout's actions. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, Nyttend, and I wish that we had had more involvement in the ANI thread: Elvenscout had suggested to me some problems with Tristan's editing (which included a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor--don't remember the name, but I'm sure Elvenscout does, and again I hope I'm remembering this correctly) after we got to work on Tanka in English. BTW, the situation on Mokichi Saitō is not so simple since Tristan was indeed the first of the two to edit it; it was Elvenscout revert of those edits that prompted my first warning. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been avoiding further comment here to avoid jinxing it (this is the first really positive input I've had with a problem that has been bugging me since September, and I thank you all!), but I need to clarify something: My edit to

talk

) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• One-way IBANs don't work. A broad TBAN for Tristan would be a better solution. -
  Nathan Johnson (talk
  ) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• No objection to that. Whatever's the best way to un-sanction a good contributor without permitting additional disruption from a problematic one. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just for clarity's sake (if someone can do this better in terms of lay-out, go ahead and tweak). IBAN for Tristan, supported by Nyttend, GregJackP, Yunshui, Pass a Method, Zad68. Indef block for Tristan: Yunshui. TBAN for Tristan: Nathan Johnson, Nyttend. I support any unban of Elvenscout and any kind of ban for Tristan at this moment. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think if we are going to count GregJackP one way or the other, we need clarification. There seems to have been a misunderstanding, as neither of us was ever under a de jure TBAN, but my main problem now is that Tristan has been creating a de facto TBAN for me. GregJackP, though, seems to be in favour of a TBAN for Tristan.

talk

) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban as well as/instead of an IBAN; Nathan's argument makes sense. Am I really the only one angling for an indef block? God, I'm an inhuman monster... Yunshui 雲‍水 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it means anything, I'd support an indef block. Tristan noir has essentially been following me for five months now, and the only edits he ever made to Wikipedia before that were to an article he created that I can't even show you because it was blocked for being a blatant copyright violation. But honestly a poetry ban would probably work just as well, since he'll stop editing altogether once he is told he's not allowed hound me anymore.

talk

) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting of all bans on
  User:Elvenscout742 and imposing topic ban on User:Tristan noir. Nyttend's analysis looks watertight to me, and it seems clear that Tristan noir has been hounding Elvenscout742 and laying traps in the hope of either provoking an inadvertent interaction ban breach or preventing the editing of a large number of items. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk
  ) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response: My comments here may be wasted effort. It appears that Elvenscout742’s request above to modify or lift the interaction ban that we mutually volunteered to accept has now, through the zeal of various editors, been transformed into a general indictment of this user. That nine editors have cast a vote before waiting for my reply strongly suggests that any argument I offer is destined to fall upon deaf ears. I did not intend to try the patience of those present by my tardiness but my appearance was briefly delayed by my being placed under a 24 hour editing ban by Nyttend within one hour of Elvenscout’s opening of this appeal at

WP:ANI

. That troubled me briefly, as it seemed effectually to grant Elvenscout 24 hours to build a consensus while I struggled to dislodge the gag from my mouth, but c’est la vie where, in love as in war, all is fair. Nevertheless, let me attempt a summary, in good faith, of the situation as I see it.

1) The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from

WP:IBAN

in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.”

2) Elvenscout violated these terms, as he himself admits, with an edit to Mokichi Saitō. He asserts that his edit was benign and that there was no cause for this user to complain to an administrator. What he conveniently neglects to report is that my complaint involved two edits. The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. In the past few days, Elvenscout on his talk page here, here and here might be viewed as having violated the interaction ban yet again by referencing this user by name and recycling old personal attacks against me.

3) One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. It appears that said editors are merely blindly accepting Elvenscout’s allegations at face value. The diffs I offer immediately above and below this paragraph show that if anyone is guilty of hounding or gaming, it is Elvenscout.

4) Elvenscout’s representation that I followed him “around various articles” is made without evidence. His recent 24 hour editing ban, however, came about as a result of his following me directly to five different articles, not one of which he’d edited previously, as documented in my complaint here. This is the same behavior that Elvenscout exhibited with me previously and is one of the chief reasons I volunteered to accept an interaction ban originally. Without dredging up the entire, sad history, I offer only a few examples of Elvenscout’s pre-interaction ban hounding. I attempted to disengage myself from earlier controversies with Elvenscout with an edit on Sept 18 of Haibun but was promptly tracked there by Elvenscout with this edit on Sept 21. Similarly, I offered an edit on Oct 6 of Prosimetrum but was shadowed there, within hours, by this edit of Elvenscout’s. In each instance, Elvenscout had never edited the articles previously and in each instance he engaged this user, and other participating editors, in lengthy talk-page debates that, with subsequent Rfcs and dispute resolutions initiated by him, further disrupted progress on the articles in question.

5) Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. He is entitled to his speculations, of course, but I don’t see why his idle daydreaming should be granted any particular weight in this discussion. No one is required to do more than they wish to do here at Wikipedia; all editing is voluntary.

6) Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban (and specifically Drmies’ decision that neither party was to edit an article the other editor had previously edited) somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. I’ve edited 13 articles (by Elvenscout’s count) since imposition of the interaction ban. A look at his edit history will show that he has edited considerably more. I will allow him to be his own accountant. My point, however, is that I’m thereby restricted from a much larger group of articles than is E. due to E’s prolific editing. And I am not whining about it.

7) Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind and, where editors other than Elvenscout have worked upon the same articles, I’ve had no complaints (and no controversies). No article on Wikipedia is the possession of any party, and much less does anyone hold a deed to his preferred field. Classical Japanese literature is somewhat larger, by my estimate, than a modest 13 articles and Elvenscout has room, and more than enough of it, to edit to his heart’s content.

8) Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Is seniority a factor in determining the issue here, viz., whether or not an interaction ban should be lifted or modified?

9)The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. As an aside, while Nyttend subsequently reverted my edits at Mokichi Saitō, he allowed the offending edit by Elvenscout to stand (since Elvenscout had unilaterally taken it upon himself to revert Drmies’ previous revert of the same). That, along with the timing of the block that has delayed my response, call into question Nyttend’s neutrality in this matter.

10) Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked.

If I’ve neglected anything in my comments, I’m confident that I can rely upon my old friend Elvenscout to point it out.Tristan noir (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to points where you mention me. (8) Elvenscout obviously was editing in this field before the ban, but you essentially weren't. I brought it up simply because it's part of the evidence that you're following him around and trying to get in his way. (9) You got Elvenscout blocked for editing an article you'd edited; what do you expect to happen when you edit an article he's edited? Who created the page is irrelevant; it's the fact that you're sticking to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit, a course of action that's generally seen as problematic. One final thing: I know absolutely nothing of Japanese poetry; the only reason that I got involved here was this thread. I was convinced that Elvenscout was in the right and you in the wrong, both because of Elvenscout's arguments and because I investigated and saw his statements to be true; I've never heard of either of you before, as far as I can remember, so I couldn't be biased or think better of one of you beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I see, Nyttend, how in good faith you may have misinterpreted the editing situation with respect to Mokichi Saitō and judged at that time that your 24 hour block was just. However, Drmies, with this edit two days ago, informed you that the situation with respect to that article was indeed as I described it and contrary to how Elvenscout has misrepresented the facts here. And yet you continue to impute bad faith (immediately above) to me on this score and continue to believe that the block, despite the clear history that Drmies offered you, was justified. More disturbing, however, is that you limit your comments to points I made about you and ignore the substantial evidence I provided above of Elvenscout's questionable edits and behavior.Tristan noir (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I don't know why I even need to bother at this point, since everyone present knows what's going on, but I will attempt to briefly explain TN's above misrepresentations anyway.

• • • The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.” Yes, I read it as meaning what it says: if TN "has been working on" an article, I am not allowed show up suddenly and begin editing it, which would be a clear interaction. One short series of edits several months earlier does not count as "being working on", and my making a benign edit to clean up the citations a bit does not count as an inappropriate interaction. At least in my reading.
    • The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. I didn't mention it (except in a parenthetical statement) because I felt it was irrelevant to my request to be allowed edit articles on classical Japanese literature. (Did I not say "that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban"?[166] I also provided the diff, so that anyone reading could judge TN's words for themselves.) I did, however, point out that TN's noticing my edits to completely unrelated pages indicates that he spent the two months he was not editing articles closely following my edits. The fact is that it was not a violation of an interaction ban with TN, because it was a direct response to another user who brought TN up without knowing the facts. That user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing/threatening me.
    • One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. By my count I have provided 33 diffs in my above post. TN's edit history clearly indicates that, when told he was not allowed interact with me, he stopped editing for well over a month, and his first edit upon returning was to complain about me.[167][168][169] Shortly thereafter he started editing prolifically[170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186] [187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197] [198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210], in an area he knows I am interested in (no diffs -- just look at Talk:Uta monogatari/Archive 1 and Talk:Tanka prose for myriad examples of me showing TN my reverence for this area -- well, just the first time we interacted maybe[211]). He must also recall that I created the article on uta monogatari[212], and he recently attempted to block me from editing the article on the second most famous uta monogatari, Yamato Monogatari.[213][214][215] Why did TN suddenly become so interested in classical Japanese literature when he was told I was not allowed to edit articles that he have edited? And why, when he had only edited around 10 articles in his previous four years on Wikipedia, did he suddenly edit 13 such articles in the space of a week?
    • Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. One has to admit, it is suspicious that between August 2008 and September 2012, TN made only about 30 edits, all to the same article, then when I edited that article he suddenly started editing on an almost daily basis, interacting with me constantly, and then he suddenly stopped editing for close to two months.
    • Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban ... somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. Yes, I do. And I specify the reason. I am not interested in "claiming" articles that I am not interested just to spite TN. His actions over the last few days clearly indicate that he is. Therefore, while TN is not prohibited from editing in his favourite area (apparently modern English poetry) at all, I am currently banned from touching the 14 or so articles on Japanese literature that he has edited.
    • Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind Which other editors has TN allowed to edit? The early history of the article at Uta monogatari clearly showed (at least until it got blocked for CO violations) that while TN will allow edits he likes, he will not allow edits he doesn't like. And this post clearly indicates that he doesn't want me editing these pages, regardless of how benign my edits were. Did he intend to add a link to Tōnomine Shōshō Monogatari to the article on Fujiwara no Takamitsu himself? Or would he have allowed another user to introduce that wikilink at some time down the line (who knows how many years that could take)? What is wrong with me introducing the link immediately? Given that the previous article I created was shortly accused of being an orphan, surely it is natural to want to link the article to its most obvious partner?
    • Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Actually, I agree that seniority is not so important here. That is why I didn't point out that actually my first edit to Wikipedia under this account back in 2005 (I edited anonymously for a while) was about Japanese literature (interpreted broadly, if the Kojiki is literature). However, the fact is that TN only started editing these articles immediately upon being told that he could block me from editing them. I don't know why he thought he could get away with such blatant gaming of the system, or why he thought I would not appeal the ban under such circumstances.
    • The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. Ummm... actually, as I have stated numerous times now, my initial edit was not a violation because it was an accident. It was made two months after TN's most recent edit.[216][217] The edit that got TN blocked, however, was made nine hours after my most recent edit, and not long before he contacted Drmies making it clear that he was aware of my most recent edit and was unapologetic about editing the article nonetheless.[218][219][220]
    • Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked. I have already posted on Drmies' talk page about that. Basically, he was confusing TN's meatpuppet Kujakupoet with the now-banned user who bizarrely cited TN in a dispute I was having with him, User:JoshuSasori. Also, it might be noted that TN was clearly reading my page User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal, as he referred to it in his first edit of this year.[221] So he was clearly at least aware of my dispute with JoshuSasori.

And that, my friends, is why the previous ANI (and numerous other earlier attempts to deal with this problem) failed: TN posted a massive diatribe against me, taking various facts out of context, forcing me to respond in an equally lengthy post.[222][223][224][225][226][227] It's a good thing some good admins were able to follow this problem before this happened this time.

talk

) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And the above complaint of a “massive diatribe” from yours truly, my friends, is further evidence of Elvenscout’s hypocrisy. Read the prior ANI at your own risk and you will discover how Elvenscout can, by sheer doggedness, talk friend and foe alike to death.

Or look at the simple evidence before you here. Elvenscout has contributed eight posts and nearly 3000 words to this ANI thread. This is my third post and I’ve yet to hit the 1500 mark. True, he did have the minor advantage of a 24 hour headstart. How has he used it? To argue in self-serving fashion that Japanese literature “broadly construed” is his “preferred field” and one that others should not be allowed to trespass. One might humor his flawed logic if he were not on the verge of convincing others here that Japanese literature as broadly construed is indeed his personal possession.Tristan noir (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• My misremembering an association with a blocked editor (Elvenscout has cleared this up on my talk page already) has no bearing on this dispute: if Tristan had been associated with such an editor that wouldn't change the facts of the matter. I mentioned it to indicate that early on I was already convinced that one side in this ongoing dispute was more right than the other, not to taint the other side. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Break for convenience

Regarding the block, I don't generally see this kind of situation as an interaction worthy of a block, but in this situation, Tristan had seen it as an interaction, and since

everyone should be treated as equals, I decided to respond to the situation on Tristan's terms. I would have hesitated anyway if I'd not been convinced that Tristan was editing in bad faith. Can we declare right now that Elvenscout is unbanned and then return to Tristan? Nyttend (talk

) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that consensus was already pretty-well established. I am sure Tristan doesn't want to see me unbanned, but this isn't his decision. How does unbanning work?

talk

) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We say, "you're unbanned," and you are. Since I think I'm right in saying that all commentators so far have accepted that elvenscout should be free to edit again, I think it's safe to assume that the consensus is precisely that. You may freely edit articles on which Tristan has been working (although use your common sense and try and avoid getting into another spat with him - if you find yourself heading that way, ask for help). If anyone disagrees, this would be a good time to say so. As for Tristan, I've already said my piece, but the consensus seems to be to allow him to edit under some sort of ban - I'd propose a broadly-construed topic ban on articles relating to Japanese literature, myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems good. No one has been arguing for a narrow TBAN, but Nyttend mentioned Japanese "poetry" a few times. Banning Tristan from only poetry articles seems inappropriate, though, since of the thirteen articles I mentioned above, only three or four could possibly be taken as "poetry" articles. Japanese literature (broadly-construed) sounds like a good idea. I am also worried that without an IBAN (and I agree a one-way IBAN is problematic), Tristan might follow me to, say,

talk

) 17:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I misread what you said originally about Japanese literature, thinking that you'd said just poetry. No objections. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today, Elvenscout sought to assure Drmies here, contrary to my assertion in point 2 of my Response above, that he had never violated the interaction ban by referencing me on Wikipedia by name. His exact words there are as follows: Additionally, he has claimed that the other edit mentioned him by name: you will notice that nowhere in the prose of any past version of User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal did I use TN's name.

This is typical of the misrepresentation of fact practised by Elvenscout and is further reason why participants here should look closely at the diffs I offered in my response. Elvenscout, as I reported to Drmies in my original complaint and as I reported on this thread, did indeed violate the ban not only my mentioning me by name but by launching a personal attack here on Jan. 19. His exact words in that edit, contrary to his denial before Drmies, were: This is a reference to a dispute I had with another user, whose activities on Wikipedia were limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars. The user had also continuously worked to undermine my edits to numerous articles on Japanese poetry and art, and continuously relied on ad hominem attacks against me rather than reliable sources. The hyperlink leads the reader directly to my contributions page and the whole remark is placed conveniently, lest the reader not get Elvenscout's point, under the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir.

In a similar spirit, Elvenscout, in edits to his own talk page on Jan. 30 here, here and here, again violates the ban by referencing me directly while recycling for the thousandth time his old attacks against me.

These four instances, and the vitriol of the remarks made by Elvenscout in them, seriously call into question Elvenscout’s good faith and veracity.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, Tristan mentioned my name four times in his block appeal, so why is he allowed mention me by name and not vice versa?

talk

) 06:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked through contributions and followed links carefully, not knowing whether to trust Elvenscout or to disbelieve him because I'd never heard of you or him. This includes edits that I checked because I felt like it even though nobody had linked them; if Elvenscout were trying to frame you, I would have caught it. Yes, Elvenscout's comments are rather long, but why do you look at the speck of sawdust in Elvenscout's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to him, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from his eye. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I recognize this logion of Yeshua’s from my visits to Sunday School, Nyttend, and I will thank you for reminding me of it. We are all sinners. I wish, however, that you would address my remarks immediately above, since they, like my initial response which you seem largely to have ignored, are pertinent to any argument being made about lifting or modifying an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell me Tristan: can you demonstrate that your activities on Wikipedia were not limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars?? How would you have me respond, when another user who knows nothing of our interaction attempts to misrepresent me as a disruptive user by pointing to your negative interaction with me? Should I just ignore it?? What about when that other user is threatening my real-world career and basing it purely on a misunderstanding about my motives? Or, did I accidentally threaten your real-world career by deleting the advertisements you posted on

talk

) 00:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout, I’m sympathetic to the straights you were placed in by Joshu Sasori’s real-life threat and I agree that his indefinite block for making that threat was justified. What was not excuseable, and what was a direct violation of

WP:IBAN, was your dragging my name into your conflict with another user and, while doing so, taking the opportunity to attack me personally yet again. So, I’m sorry about your problem with the other user. Beyond that, my above comments stand.Tristan noir (talk) —Preceding undated

comment added 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As Tristan well knows from reading the page, I did not "drag his name" into anything. What he above calls "the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir" is not a sub-heading and he knows it. The page does not have original sub-headings as JoshuSasori's attack page did; it consists of a series of alternating quotations from JoshuSasori's page and my responses. The headings in the article contents are all JoshuSasori's original headings, but any other text he used has been marked as a quote. Since Tristan brought a specific edit I made to the page to the attention of Drmies, he must be aware that the code for the "sub-heading" as he calls it was "<blockquote>[[User:Tristan noir]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvenscout742#Personal_Remarks]</blockquote> ".

I have now pointed this factoid out numerous times, and yet he has persisted in honing in on it rather than focusing on the problem. This is something he engaged in on Talk:Tanka in English and numerous other pages, where he will go off on rants about the publishing industry and completely ignore the actual content of my edits.[230][231][232][233][234][235][236] THIS is why I volunteered to initiate an interaction ban with him, a ban he broke when he started closely following my edits despite not making any of his own, and when he tricked Drmies into thinking that I had reverted his edits to the article Mokichi Saitō.

Also, this discussion of whether or not I violated an interaction ban is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Consensus was already established that the interaction ban never should have applied to me because I did not make any disruptive edits, and the interaction ban has already been lifted from me. Now we are trying to disuss what should be done with Tristan noir: I therefore would like to politely ask Tristan to refrain from any further discussion of my behaviour, and instead focus on telling those present why he should not be placed under a broad TBAN for his recent pattern of disruptive behaviour. Perhaps he should start by explaining to us why he made a

spammy edits[238][239][240] to Haibun, and the now famous edits to Mokichi Saitō

, but otherwise showed no interest whatsoever in JLit until told he could block me from editing those articles and suddenly edited thirteen JLit articles in the space of a week.

talk

) 03:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that you, Elvenscout, were directing traffic here. I thought you were merely another participant like me. Your "explanation" of your edits above, before you enter upon your Tristam Shandy-like digression, is amusing and disingenuous. Nevertheless, this discussion is open and ongoing. No one has formally closed it and no one has issued a ruling one way or the other. So, like it or not, your conduct, like my own, is open to review.Tristan noir (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since not one commentator on this discussion (which has now been open for four days) has so much as suggested that elvenscout's IBAN be retained, I stand by my earlier statement, which I reiterate here for clarity: Elvenscout is, by community consensus, no longer banned from editing pages which have previously been edited by Tristan noir. The question now is whether or not to impose a topic ban, continued one-way interaction ban, or indefinite block on Tristan noir. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban/Interaction ban/Indef block of Tristan noir

Okay. I'm summarizing the above results in a table. If I can be forgiven for reading GregJackP's initial vote as being in favour of a TBAN (since he said "topic ban" twice, and seems to have simply misread Nyttend's proposal), and taking both Nyttend and Drmies as now supporting "any of the above" (whatever the majority consensus otherwise would be), it goes as follows:

One-way IBAN	"Japanese literature" TBAN	Indef block	Any of the above
Pass a Method	GregJackP	Yunshui	Nyttend
	Nathan Johnson	Stalwart	Drmies
	Boing! said Zebedee		Zad68

--

talk

) 08:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted GregJackP for his approval on my above interpretation. He did say he supported Nyttend's initial proposal, which was specifically an IBAN, so I guess we shouldn't count him out for an IBAN just yet. Also, can we take the TBAN topic as being "Japanese literature"?

talk

) 08:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed count myself (is this a community consensus or, being AN, an admin thing?), but I must admit to an ulterior motive for being in favour of an indef block: if Tristan noir weren't still around, this redirect could finally be dealt with. It only exists because Tristan noir unilaterally derailed an AfD, and despite his promise he has made no attempt to perform the merge that was suggested. Thanks to Drmies's fixing the page, a merge is likely no longer possible. But none of the proposed solutions (other than indef) address this minor issue.

talk

) 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment #14 (and counting) by E. to this thread. I doubt that anyone here will object, Elvenscout, to your liberal offer to count yourself in the tally. Why not add your vote (or 14 votes, if you prefer) to your table above?Tristan noir (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding in a new heading since Elvenscout has had their topic ban lifted and the discussion has moved on to a discussion of sanctions that are to be applied to Tristan noir. I have no view in this matter, just merely making the threads easier to track. Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I support a topic ban on Tristan, in the area of Japanese literature, broadly interpreted. GregJackP Boomer! 12:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Support some kind of action, elven shouldn't have to put up with nonsense, especially as elven is doing content development in an area that really requires a rare skillset on en.wp, consider my !vote to support any/all of the above. Zad68 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block. I proposed the original mutual bans because the content disputes were distracting both from content creation. The lifting of bans for Elvenscout has been well explained and dealt with. As soon as the ban was imposed, TN disappeared after only two more minor edits in early December. With no further contributions of his own (but obviously all the while keeping a close eye on E's contributions) TN suddenly re-appeared out of the blue at the end of January to report a "gotcha" breach to Drmies. There's been a spurt of editing activity since to suggest a "contribution" but I'm not convinced. The hounding alone is concerning enough. Time to shut this down and move on. Stalwart111 22:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The facts are quite simple. E and I both volunteered for an interaction ban that Stalwart111 first proposed. Further, E, as I’ve demonstrated in the diffs in my Response above, violated that ban by referencing me (and negatively) in his user’s space and on his talk page, contrary to

WP:IBAN. Elvenscout also violated the letter and spirit of the ban by following me to five articles he’d not previously edited, contrary to the specific terms of the ban as stipulated by Drmies, and he did so within days of being directly warned by Drmies that such activity would lead to a block. All of this is documented in my Response, and this evidence remains unaddressed by E’s apologists here.Tristan noir (talk

) 05:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You hadn't made a single contribution since 9 December. On 19 January, E linked to your contributions to give a current dispute some context. A breach of the IBAN? Sure, maybe. But the very next day, you popped up again, having just happened to log back in the day after he made that edit? And you just happened to be looking through his edits? And you just happened to find the "gotcha" moment you reported? So my questions are these - how is that not hounding? And, how many times did you have to log in during that month-and-a-bit of zero edits to constantly trawl his contributions for mentions of you? Your 24-hour response time suggests at least once-a-day. But it doesn't really matter. Your wiki-stalking is far more serious and disruptive than a taken-out-of-context, context-giving link that might have breached a voluntary IBAN, in my opinion. And the other editors seem to agree, to the point where E's part of the ban has been lifted. Serious enough to finally confirm you are

WP:NOTHERE to actually build an encyclopedia in a collegial manner. Serious enough to warrant a block. Stalwart111

08:37, 5 February 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 to lift restriction

RESTRICTION REMOVED

NE Ent 13:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I am here again, three months after my restriction was enacted. During the last three months I have dedicated myself to learn from the mistakes I did, and to try to improve my understanding of the deletion policy and the non-admin closure guidelines. I recognize that I made several errors in judgement in my closures, and that I did some I shouldn't have. My intentions were always to help, as much as I could, but I understand that while doing so, I violated the spirit of the NACs, and caused problems I could have avoided. Also, I have tried to do my best to become a better Wikipedian and to not make more mistakes like those I did, and to help other users not to make those same mistakes.

Therefore, I am here, asking the community if enough time has elapsed since my restriction was enacted and if it could be lifted now, three months later. I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures (although I may seek guidance from an admin, likely

²¹

03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restriction, as Hahc has really improved his skills and knowledge in the past three months. The restriction is no longer necessary.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to be relevant. Crazynas t 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In the linked discussion where the restriction was enacted, you described the complaint as "Such absurd claims these are" and "As for everything else, I think it's a bit ridiculous and extreme" - have you changed your mind about this, or do you still believe the complaint had those issues? -- talk ) 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Unsure why my opinion on the original compliant has any relevance to its request for being lifted.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Because it contradicts with your statement here which implies that the restriction was at one point necessary Till 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC) The restriction was made by consensus; not everybody involved in a discussion must agree, but if there are more "support" than "oppose", it's so. That doesn't make a difference. Per the consensus (not my own opinion on the matter), the restriction no longer applies. Simple.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC) IN B4 "YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) All I'm saying is that here you said the restriction is "no longer" necessary (which means it was necessary at 1 point), but in the original thread you said that it is not necessary at all. U can't go by 2 statements which contradict each other like that. Perhaps you meant "the restriction is not ncessary"? Btw—the restriction was not entirely made by consensus—Hahc agreed to it Till 04:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Again, I was basing my comment on consensus, not on my own personal opinion. I never said "I feel that it is no longer necessary." Per the consensus of his restriction, it was deemed that it was required because he hadn't known enough about policy. Clearly he has improved on such.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC) There's not much of a "consensus" if u agree to it, duh Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC) @Till: this thread is for discussing the lifting of a restriction on Hahc ... this thread is not about Status, and certainly not about Status' state of mind a few months ago. --Noleander (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I wasn't the one who brought that issue up. Till 05:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restriction - I have seen Hahc21 around quite a lot and I would be quite happy to put my opinion towards lifting the edit restriction.
  talk
  ) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support lift of restriction - Hahc21's been doing some fine work recently, and his apology seems sincere. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question for Hahc21: I think it would probably be a good idea to relax the restriction, but before I commit one way or the other I would like to see how your understanding has improved. If you are willing, could you pick any three AfD discussions that are currently open and that are eligible for non-admin closure, and tell us how you would close them? (Please understand that there is no need for you to answer this question if you don't want to; if you would rather not, that is absolutely fine.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I am not willing to do more NACs, I'd be glad to answer your question. Give me a day to find and evaluate three discussions and come here with a response. Thank you :) —
    ²¹
    05:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Answer: I have found the next discussions that may be considered for NAC:
    1. Moncton Christian Academy: It has only Keep votes, and all of them are based in policy and previous outcomes regarding high schools.
    2. Jenny Hill (politician): It has three keep votes. Although I'd prefer to see this relisted, the first Keep vote relies on a note from the notability guidelines for politicians, and the two subsequent votes echo this.
    3. WS FTP (2nd nomination): This one has four Keep votes. The first two stated how the topic may meet notability guidelines, and provided sources to back up these claims. The third and fourth votes echo this by stating that reliable sources are found and notability has been achieved. I don't expect this to receive any delete votes, and relisting it may not be necessary.
  • I took those three from the February 6 log, which means that 7 days have yet to pass. I did that to avoid having them closed before you check them. Regards. —
    ²¹
    16:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. One of the underlying problems in the original thread was that Hahc could not admit to his wrongdoings of making poor and problematic NAC closures. Now that he has acknowledged these errors it appears that the restriction does not seem necessary as it was before. However, I just hope that we won't see that kind of judgement in the form of closing discussions in the future Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Switch to support. Have fun! Till 22:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I am inclined to think the user has learned from his mistakes, however I would be slightly worried about letting him resume doing NACs freely when the community has previously agreed he shouldn't; however, if Stradivarius' question above is answered successfully I see no other obstacle to the lifting of the restrictions. :) ·
  ✉
  08:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good day Salvidrim, in case you missed it but in the openening paragraph Hahc21 stated 'I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures', Which should address your concern. Should that be the actual concern unless you are pointing some else out.

talk

) 12:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Either he doesn't plan on doing NACs, in which case lifting the restriction is pointless, or he plans on doing NACs; the amount and regularity of them have no impact on the restrictions themselves. However if he agrees with Elen's offer just under to run the first few NACs by here, then I would personally have no other concerns about lifting the restriction. :) ·

✉

It's not all about the act, you know. He is listed on a restriction list. And who would want their name there?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Full support considering reply to Stradivarius with examples of potential NACs. :) ·
  ✉
  21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restrictions. Hahc21 has had considerable discussion with myself and also I believe with Mark Arsten about what went wrong and how NAC is intended to work. He has also shown himself very competent as a clerk trainee, which is way more complicated to pick up. I've suggested that run the first half dozen he thinks might be suitable for NAC past either myself or Mark, as a backstop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Hahc21 made some mistakes and learned from them. We all make mistakes, it is part of the learning process. Time to move on. With Elen and Mark in the wings, the likelihood of a major mistake is pretty low. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Per the comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support I think he can be trusted to be careful with the closes from now on. Note that Hahc contacted me off-wiki about giving guidance if this is lifted, which I plan on doing. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support If there's an issue down the road it can be restored, but I don't think there will be. --Rschen7754 22:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support This user has obviously learnt from previous mistakes. -- Cheers,
  ey
  23:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support and exactly what Rschen7754 said above ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support ending restriction. There wasn't either evidence of a massive problem or massive participation advising the restriction in the first place. AfD needs closers, although Administrators would be preferred. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support lifting restriction. No longer needed, as many people above have said. Vacation9 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support See how they go this time... (Should be OK, I think.) Peridon (talk) 13:39, 11 February 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.

Iranian Space Agency

Dealt with on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

There has been a lengthy discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iranian_Space_Agency#Moon_program_claim) about a claim that Iran will send astronauts to moon by 2025.

Some non-Iranian media have stated a target date (2025) for the project. None of the articles has mentioned an Iranian source for the date. There is not a SINGLE credible or official Iranian source for the date. So I added a sentence that "the date is not mentioned in local Iranian media or official sources." Now a user User:Darkness_Shines continuously removes the sentence.

There is no source that mentions the date (2025) in Iranian media. I have searched carefully and asked (in the talk page) for the editors to find such a reference if any but no-one has been able to provide any Iranian source.

Please comment. Sarmadys (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are complaining that I am removing your OR from an article? That is most certainly a new approach. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue. As it says at the top, "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." If you want an Admin to do something, go to

talk

) 15:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am asking admins to advise and stop the specific modification. It is in regard to verifiability. I suggested that we add a statement that there is no reference in Iranian media until a single reference is found. The official website of Iranian News Agency (http://www.isa.ir/components1.php?rQV==wHQyAkOklUZnFWdn5WYMJXZ0VWbhJXYw9lZ8B0N3QDQ6QWStVGdp9lZ8BUM4ATMApDZJ52bpR3Yh9lZ) announces the program but does not mention a date for it. It does however mention a date for sending astronauts to lower orbit (2020). Sarmadys (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving to

WP:ANISarmadys (talk

) 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• And as another editor has reinserted that OR I would appreciate an admin going over to that article and explain policy Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 10 February 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.

Merge being discussed in three places

This doesn't require urgent admin action, but I just thought I should draw someone's attention to it. The article

Talk:2013 Southern California shootings. The first two discussions seem to be tending towards a 'keep separate' consensus, while the third is tending towards a 'merge'. I don't envy the admin who tries to close this lot and decide what the overall consensus is. Robofish (talk

) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The deletion nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator, and no-one else has !voted delete, so IMO that discussion should be speedy-closed as keep, with a comment about where to discuss keep-or-merge. Strictly speaking that discussion should be the one at at

Talk:2013 Southern California shootings#Merge/redirect since that article is the target of the proposed merge. --MelanieN (talk

) 17:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the AfD has been closed more or less as you suggest. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ashley Dzerigian

Can you please check Ashley Dzerigian? I think there's a copyrigt violation from user Romansbarbie. Thanks, --Delfort (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. In the future, please find the source (in this case, it's http://www.fender.com/artists/profile/ashleydzerigian/; google is frequently a good tool for this). Secondly, remove the content from the current version of the page; and thirdly, place a {{Copyvio-revdel}} on the page (see on the template's description page how to do this). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --Delfort (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Or if there is no salvageable copyright-free content, tag it for

G12 speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk

) 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Overdue PROD

Deleted by User:Joe Decker. Crazynas ^t 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I'm not sure where to put this. So there is this page(Irene Lombard) that has this over due PROD. So can you delete that page. Thank you.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 19:34, 11 February 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 IP range block

I have been reverting edits by an IP user from Colombia, who persistently and repeatedly vandalizing football related articles for last several months, such as Colombia national football team, Japan national football team, North Korea national football team, South Korea national football team, etc. in the same way by adding false match information on. IP addresses recently used are such as 181.154.213.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.157.213.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.157.164.24‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), 181.157.213.218‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), 180.253.30.210‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), etc. Nothing seems to work to stop the vandal although warnings were given and those above IPs were temporarily blocked. I would like to ask administrators if you could enforce the range block. Thanks ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Falsification of history in Azerbaijan

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

---

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted Falsification of history in Azerbaijan article, without even nominating it for deletion. He claims that the article was "a tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content".

I find this unacceptable. As long as I know, Wikipedia is a community and admins don't have the right to delete articles without even a little discussion. The article was mostly translated from the Russian Wikipedia and the article there [241] was created in 2008 and as you can see it still exists. --

^talk

15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(This is also in reply to your similar message on my talk page.) Yes, administrators do have that right, under the circumstances described at

WP:ARBAA2.  Sandstein 

18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That being said, you find no reliable sources there? The fact that the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life isn't my fault. Why you are advising me not to document their vandalism? What is Wikipedia for? There are numerous cases of Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists trying to present Armenian cultural monuments as Caucasian Albanian and even old Turkic. --

^talk

18:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The title of the deleted article speaks for itself. It is a

WP:Attack article, and as such has no place in Wikipedia. The fact that it referred to some sources does not mean that one can create a blatantly POV article to attack a certain nation. Grandmaster

18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? The title "Armenian Genocide" might be questioned by you as well. Here are some third-party sources calling it falsification [242], [243]. Now what? And even if the title was POV, as you claim, it could've been just changed. --

^talk

18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I can cite a million sources using the term "Armenian terrorism", yet we have no such article here, even though there's an article with that title in the Russian wikipedia, and you object to the use of the term in various articles describing attacks on Turkish diplomats. And the Iranian source that you quoted is not the best to be used here, Wikipedia does not base its articles on partisan sources. Grandmaster 18:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster, this is the administrators' noticeboard. Content discussions are offtopic here; they belong on article or project talk pages. Please do not prolong unproductive discussions by engaging in content discussions on this board.  Sandstein  19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest this thread be closed. The article was obviously and flagrantly written to do nothing but disparage and degrade the subject. It made absolutely no attempt to portray a balanced view point and as such is the definition of an attack page. Ranting attack page=CSD. Take this somewhere else and move along.
  _berate
  18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest recovering the article, tagging it as POV, while we can clean it up and rename it. --

^talk

18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is enough. Yerevanci, you have already been notified previously about the possibility of discretionary sanctions under the authority of the Committee's decision at
  WP:NPOV. To underline the importance of these rules and prevent a contination of such conduct, I am considering to ban you from editing anything related to the topic of Armenia and Azerbaijan for the duration of a month. Is there anything you wish to say about that?  Sandstein 
  18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Dear Sandstein. Look. There are numerous third-party sources that prove that the Azerbaijani government falsifies the fact that Armenian cultural monuments exist in the territory of Azerbaijan by "making" them Caucasian Albanian. In other cases, like

^talk

19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the topic. I suppose there are articles about the conflict between the two countries, or about culture in Azerbaijan, in which such issues can be addressed, if they are covered by reliable independent sources and there is consensus for their inclusion. However, that's not a topic for discussion on this board. Because the initial question has been answered, I'm marking this thread as closed.  Sandstein  19:27, 11 February 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.

Comical (sort of)

No interest despite a consensus of one.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

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

First look at the garbage drivel wonderful Jackpot article. Then look at Muffeiy's contributions (and deleted contributions), who seems to be intent on creating articles for each of the strips supposedly in the comic books. I'm not sure if the comic book is notable, although I tend to doubt it, but the strips? And, just like the writers of the article, Muffeiy has trouble writing anything coherent. I get tired looking at it all. Who wants to do something about it (lazily passing the buck), assuming others agree that something should be done? Tag the articles for speedy deletion? Delete them without tagging? Have a good talking to to Muffeiy. All of the above.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I see what you did there —Rutebega (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm the right age, gender and nationality to remember all of these comics. Jackpot is just about notable, and if not it can certainly go as a footnote pointing towards
  put our super sized comic fangs (available free in Cor!! issue 42) away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  15:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously, I disagree with you (not about the A7), but it doesn't seem to be grabbing anyone, so it appears that I'm in a minority. I deleted one article about a person (A7), and I deleted one of the strip articles (A1) because it was so confusing I didn't understand what the subject of the article was. Having since explored the editor's contributions, I now do know what the article was about. In any event, I'll just let it go. One piece of good news: it appears that the editor is talking to more experienced editors, and her comments sound constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 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.

Declaration of possible conflict of interest

I have just accepted a contractual position with the Wikimedia Foundation, and posted a full disclosure with details and an invitation for community comments here. — Coren ^(talk) 21:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin move this please?

Moved by Tariqabjotu.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

We have consensus at

WP:COMMONNAME. The problem is it needs to be moved over a redirect. Could an admin handle this please? Thanks! Go Phightins!

02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files backlog

There's some

possibly unfree files dating back to January that have yet to have yet to be dealt with or have their discussions closed. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)}

02:47, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Indef-blocked sock master unbanned by a single vote

Perhaps. Unless some more of you weigh in above, at "WP:OFFER accepted, your input requested". Come on people, take your admin job seriously. I don't care if you're pro or con, but we look like asses here with no one participating. Ent, thanks for your contribution: you put the rest of us to shame. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on a close

Could uninvolved administrators please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 12 about the close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata deployed to the English Wikipedia

Just a heads up: Wikidata is now live on en.wp, see [244]. A FAQ is available at m:Wikidata/Deployment Questions.

Please discuss this at

WP:BOWN#Wikidata. MER-C

03:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ha! I see this has already been posted--I was informed of this after a Wikidata editor removed the links from the FA on our front page and was, of course, promptly reverted. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• The edit summaries needs to be more informative. People want a direct link to an explanation of where are the links. Try a text like "Where are the language links now?" --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion requested on Mister World

I like that the exclusion of this page be reviewed. The page has an existing event and objects of research and consultation. I would like the page back into existence without the items that can cause controversy. I want at least an outline can be done so that other users can collaborate. I ask that this decision be revised, or at least it is available for editing, as if it were an ordinary page, published for the first time. Thanks, Brenhunk (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, this user isn't actually asking for

deletion discussions on this that you'll want to review first: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister World (3rd nomination) is the latest. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 15:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

request offensive and disgusting edit summary removed

Resolved

[245] Can someone please purge that from public view. Anyone reading the edit history of the article would read that, and its rather nasty to see the edit summary. Dream Focus 00:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been done (not by me, but still). gwickwire^talk_edits 01:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

<ec> Yup, done. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Reported to oversight, which removed it. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First featured sound nomination in a year

Per the

WP:FSC. Please feel free to participate, and to nominate your own suggestions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk

) 05:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to revoke Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger

Both topic bans mentioned below are officially lifted, by consensus here. TTT, please note that the topic bans were originally enacted for a reason. I'm assuming the problems leading to the topic bans will not recur. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I saw this mentioned in a discussion (where they were attempted to be used to object to him photographing camera equipment he happened to own, which is, it must be said, outside any reasonable interpretation of the topic ban anyway), was a bit surprised, and reviewed it. I honestly don't think these serve any non-punitive purpose anymore, if they ever did serve a purpose. As it's been a year and a half, unless anyone has good reason to continue upholding them, I think it's time to lift them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I read it a bit different. What I see on that page is:

1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds

2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed

Could you please give a link to the discussion where you stumbled upon, leading you to review these topic bans? The Banner talk 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As you wish: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Canon_EF_40mm_STM_lens_(focus_stacked_version). I don't think its mention in that thread was justified, but I do think, frankly, that Tony forgot about it is probably a good sign he hasn't done any behaviour that was worth reminding him of it in the 18 months since. I sincerely doubt he'd have been allowed to forget about it had he carried on in such a manner that would justify bringing it up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you the the mention of the topic bans there was a bit harsh. On the other hand, it is easy to read "uploading images about himself, broadly construed" as "uploading images about himself and his possessions." (as the discussion also mentioned the many pictures of prizes posted on his TP). The Banner talk 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lift ban 18 months is long enough to give the user another shot. (Note: I participated in that discussion as
  Nathan Johnson (talk
  ) 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I notified 28bytes, who closed the discussion at Archive706. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Nyttend noted above, he let me know about this discussion; I'll let others weigh in on whether the topic bans are still necessary, but for the record I think it's quite a stretch to say that a topic ban preventing "uploading images about himself, broadly construed" could cover objects like this. I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the topic ban, even considering the "broadly construed" bit. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Lift ban per Nathan Johnson.
  AutomaticStrikeout (T • C
  ) 21:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• (e/c) The
  Bencherlite^Talk
  21:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• As some context for my comments in that review (which is what Adam is getting at, I think), Tony has been repeatedly nominating images of his camera equipment for FPC over the last couple of weeks. These images largely haven't been in the article for a week as is required, and there has been a strong consensus that they don't meet the FP standards. I'd commented on several of the previous nominations, and raised the potential topic ban issue only when Tony kept posting these doomed nominations (other editors had previously asked that he cease these nominations given that he appears to be using them as means of getting feedback on his photography, which isn't the intended purpose of FPC). In short, I think that this pattern of behaviour violates - at very least - the spirit of the topic ban. The image in question here was nominated the day it was uploaded and didn't have a chance of passing as the lens is lightly covered in dust (a specific concern raised in some of Tony's previous recent camera equipment FPCs) and the lighting is clearly a bit off. His other recent nominations of his camera equipment are at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Tiffen UV filter Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/January-2013#Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (version 2) (note that in several cases Tony uploaded completely different photos during these nominations after receiving negative feedback about the photo which was originally nominated, which is also violates the requirement that nominated images have been in the article for a week). This is basically the same pattern of behavior which led to the topic bans being instituted in the first place, and so I oppose lifting them at this time. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick, first of all, the 7-day thing is a recommendation, it's not a requirement, Particularly when he's taking feedback from one nom, and trying to make a picture that will respond to the issues raised and thereby be an improvement - which is by any reasonable account a good thing. I really don't think your behaviour was helpful, but that's quite secondary to the problem here: That there is no need to restrict a generally good contributor. Hell, I'm not even sure it was justified at the time, but it probably doesn't help to second-guess that now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lift ban per Nathan Johnson. (Full disclosure: my "1/2 GA" is due TtT's work on Carly Foulkes). NE Ent 23:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Lift all of his bans - What is this obsession with enacting bans on Wikipedia's greatest content contributors? Has anyone looked at how much this guy does here? Who cares about some mild vainglory? I note that certain other editors get away with far worse behavior because they are good content contributors. Lift these pointless bans. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 07:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

N.B.: This was mistakenly archived by a bot, but it's patently ridiculous to have a ban discussion where it's clear that there's no consensus for the ban remaining unclosed. I've thus undid the bot's actions, since [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Ban_lifting_discussion_got_archived_without_closing|apparently noone pays attention to the Requests for closure page] which attempted to ask for the closure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what is going on here, procedurally, but I listed this discussion at

WP:FOUR

) 08:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Two weeks is a long time for a debate, I do believe there is a clear consensus to lift the ban, if after two weeks there isn't opposition I suggest an Admin calling it a consensus and then we all go our happy ways. That being said No evidence of disruptive behavior is shown so I also agree lifting the ban is in order.
  talk
  ) 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  There is opposition to lifting the ban, although for some reason Guerillero has chosen to voice their opinion

  at ANRFC instead of this thread. Jafeluv (talk

  ) 10:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • He posted there because the conversation was archived without being closed and I listed this issue at ANRFC in pursuit of closure. ANRFC was actually the place to contribute to this discussion at the time that he responded.--

    WP:FOUR

    ) 14:44, 15 February 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.

Misapplications of G5

No further action required - user has been advised about incorrect CSD tags and not tagged any articles since. GiantSnowman 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

While checking through Speedy Deletion listings, I've noticed that something seems to be going on with Page Curation, in that page-curating users are tagging articles for G5 - "created in violation of a block or ban" - in cases where an editor has later been blocked, but the article was created entirely validly (i.e. not eligible for G5). I've seen this happen at least three times, and I'm wondering if this is a misunderstanding of the process or something going awry with regards to curation. (One example here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually upon checking it appears to be one editor doing this, so not a concern here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll close it then. GiantSnowman 17:00, 15 February 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.

Re-posting: request for range block

(previous discussion I posted)

I have been reverting edits by an IP user from Colombia, who persistently and repeatedly vandalizing football related articles for last several months, such as Colombia national football team, Japan national football team, North Korea national football team, South Korea national football team, etc. in the same way by adding false match information on. IP addresses recently used are such as

• 181.154.213.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 181.157.213.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 181.157.164.24‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 181.157.213.218‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 180.253.30.210‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), etc.

Nothing seems to work to stop the vandal although warnings were given and those above IPs were temporarily blocked. I would like to ask administrators if you could enforce the range block. Thanks ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

After I posted the discussion quoted above, the user is still persistently posting false information on

Kirin Cup, Italy national football team

, through

• 181.154.213.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 181.155.63.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 181.147.211.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Need to notify to the administrator of COMCEL S.A. in Colombia at least.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is probably part of a larger issue of vandalism and sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mauricio80/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mauricio80 for background. As I understand it, a (large) rangeblock is not possible because it would affect good IP contributors. - MrX 02:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

New false edits on Colombia national football team through

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

---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to block any range longer than a /16 (first 2 numbers the same). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused ...

I reported

WP:AIV as having been blocked, but when I go to his block log, it doesn't show that he's been blocked. What am I missing? RNealK (talk

) 05:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What happened is that you reported the user at 23:35, 15 February 2013‎, but he stopped editing at 22:51. As he didn't continue to edit after your report, no action was needed, and the bot removed the request. —

²¹

05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I also see that the bot is reporting that the user was blocked by

²¹

05:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The bots will only remove a request if the user has been blocked. Any other removal is done by hand, meaning the bot screwed up here. Legoktm (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The double pipe in the {{

✉

08:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No edits since Sep. 2012, though... I'll drop an e-mail, but someone else might want to look into it. I won't block the bot right away as it does largely more good than harm. :) ·

✉

08:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe

²¹

17:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A humble suggestion

I'd encourage admins to remember that when pending-changes protecting a page, whatever summary they leave in the logs will display both in the editnotice and on the reviewing screen. Since the protection reason often plays a role in a reviewer's decision, I think it would be useful if admins could always try to give a descriptive reason. At several points in the past I've pointed out that it would be nice if admins could be a bit more precise than the default reasons (e.g. if there's a specific section to keep an eye on, or a specific edit that someone keeps on making), but I understand that that's not always necessary or feasible; however, what I would remind y'all of is that while notes like "bump down to P.C. to see what happens" make complete sense in the page history and logs, they're really not that informative to reviewers, instead requiring us to go check the history to see what the original protection reason was. Anyways, just thought I'd put that out there. — 

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

12:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about this earlier today too. If there is a specific reason a page needs PCP, it's nice to know about it. Doesn't really bother me when one's not included, but screening is easier when one knows what to look for. Ta. —Rutebega (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ADDING PERSON

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – You can request the article be created at

talk

) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD PETER MAIVIA JR SON OF HIGH CHIEF PETER MAIVIA UNCLE OF DWAYNE JOHNSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.59.55 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How are they notable? Elockid ^(Talk) 17:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and Interwiki links

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this.

Further information: m:Wikidata/Deployment Questions and https://blog.wikimedia.de/?p=13892.

All interwiki bots that run on the English Wikipedia have now stopped adding interwiki links.

Removal of interwiki links on a page linked to a wikidata item that contains the links is NOT vandalism. Please use this script which can identify if the links are found on wikidata.

If you have any questions regarding wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Begging the question

I have protected the article due to persistent edit-warring by two very zealous editors, and have given them a week to work their issues out on the talk page. (I don't wish to leave the article the way it is, and unprotected, with the inevitable EW block to follow.) They're accusing each other of OR, insults, tendentious editing, edit-warring, etc. It's grrreat. Anyway, if any of you are philosophically inclined, feel free to have a look at what promises to be an intellectual feast. Also, I'm not happy about locking an article for a week, but it's not a very high-traffic article; I'm more than willing to be overruled there if you think it's too much. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback request for comments scheduled to end Thursday, February 21

Hi. This is just a gentle reminder that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is scheduled to wrap up on Thursday, February 21. Any and all editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Bbb23's block is OK. Opinions differ on whether to contact the university's IT department. Meanwhile, the range has been blocked by User:Kww. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2013

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.

---

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

Please review my block of this IP for 6 months as I was mentioned in the edit that provoked the block. Frankly, I'm not sure if 6 months wasn't too short; this editor has a history that precedes the inappropriate edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I dunno Bbb23, if you're secretly working for the Russian security services then I agree with whatever you want to do, yeah? Just don't hurt me. GiantSnowman 17:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Serious response now - the sole previous block was in May 2011 for 24 hours, seems quite a jump to 6 months, even if it is a static IP, and no recent warning at all. GiantSnowman 17:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to reduce the length, but take a look at this recent edit and this older edit. It's all part of a pattern, and I see no good coming out of it. I had to protect Russian language in Ukraine back in 2012, partly because of disruptive editing from User:142.150.48.136, another supposedly static IP that geolocates from the same place as .49.145. Up to you, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of changing blocks without discussion first, so let's see how this thread plays out. A block should be issued, don't get me wrong, but I just feel that 6 months may be slightly steep. No harm in leaving it as it is for now while the discussion is ongoing. GiantSnowman 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not good; address lightly used, belongs to University of Toronto, and OP is responding to obvious trolling. GS (or other admin) should reduce to whatever they think is good, close this here thread, and say no more, say no more NE Ent 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The address resolves to a student university computer pool; according to its website staff and students are required to log in with a unique ID before using the machines. If the sysadmins there were informed they should be able to tie the disruptive edits to a specific individual, who could then be prevented from further disruption. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The static IP may be one specific computer in an IT suite; this guy just happens to use the same computer, in his favourite spot, every time he edits Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a shared educational institution template to the IP's page. I'm not familiar with how this is done, but based on the instructions at

WP:ABUSE, the IP has to have been blocked at least five times before reporting them. Also, I think Psyconaut's point is that the individual is using different computers at the university but might be the same person based on their logins at each computer.--Bbb23 (talk

) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I was simply saying that this particular IP can probably be tied to an individual student or staff member at the University of Toronto. If it's assigned to a single computer, that makes it easy for the sysadmins to identify who was using it at the time, but even if it's a router IP, there may be sufficient records to trace the edits to a particular machine. As for

WP:ABUSE, that project has its own self-imposed rules. Anyone here is free to take the initiative and report abuse to the U of T (though of course in a strictly personal capacity, not on behalf of Wikipedia or Wikimedia in general). All you need to do is craft a politely worded e-mail pointing to the IP's edits on the one hand, and the U of T's AUP on the other. —Psychonaut (talk

) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reasonable block. It's obviously the same person, so the fact that warnings aren't "recent" is unimportant. The person we're trying to block is deeply into a WP conspiracy theory, and so is never going to become a constructive editor; minimizing the time sink is the best we can do. If I had run across this myself, I would have blocked for 6 months without a second thought. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Good block; plenty of previous warning. This POV-pushing user also acts across other IPs such as:
  • 142.150.49.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.48.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.48.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.49.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 142.150.48.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • I should think a range-block is the most appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • According to our article University of Toronto there's 33000 undergrads there -- that's lot of potential editors to be rangeblocking. Psyconaut's approach (above) would be preferred. NE Ent 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) A few of those IP addresses haven't edited. One of them edited recently. The others all last edited in 2012. Do we need a range block if so many of them have not edited recently?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Contact details for the IT lab are here. Per Psychonaut, their admins may be able to offer a solution. It we email links to the contribution histories of the IPs, they should be able to identify the culprit, and maybe have a quiet word. It would be outing though, and it feels a bit not right. Actually, the more I think about it, the less I like that idea. We could just email them the times each IP was editing, without disclosing the articles. (Sorry, just thinking out loud.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • .107 appears to be my mistake. Instead, there is 142.150.48.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 142.150.48.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I see not edits on these two IPs neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
              • Corrections to IPs... I did not realize the range expanded to 142.150.48.xxx and 142.150.49.xxx. It is a larger problem than I thought. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't see how it would be outing. We're not disclosing or requesting the identity of the editor. We're just asking that they consult their own private records and stop whoever it is. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • By "outing" I mean revealing what the person has been writing. Sending the university's IT guy to the IP contribution histories on Wikipedia would enable them to identify the user from the uni log-in record, but also enable them to see what the IP's been writing. Sending them just the timing information for each troublesome IP would enable them to identify the user without linking them to what the user has been writing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
              • If we don't provide them evidence that their user has been contravening their terms of service, then what justification would they possibly have for investigating and taking action against him or her? Psychonaut (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the feasibility of a rangeblock: I ran a collateral check on 142.150.49.0/24 and found that, as far back as CU can see, there weren't many edits from the range at all, and only three anon edits that don't appear to be this user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Range block for 6 months. It may encourage other students to locate the troublemaker, which would see him barred from the school computers. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The block and/or rangeblock are probably fine but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of reporting this to the university IT, certainly not without adequate warning. We warn editors before we block them. Shouldn't we warn them before we report them?--regentspark (comment) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the first IP account here has racked up an impressive number of warnings. The other accounts also have warnings. And the person operating the accounts was certainly made aware of the University's AUP before he used the computer pool for the first time. Psychonaut (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is shouldn't we post a specific warning that the editor will be reported to the IT department of the university? The edit reported by Bbb above is not threatening, nor has anyone been outed. The idea that we're going to start actively policing and reporting this sort of thing goes against the grain of Internet freedom. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• University of Toronto's computer use policy makes it clear the user does not have an absolute expectation of privacy.
• "The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration." is a WMF founding principle. Range-blocking thousands of students to swat one troll is putting the cart before the horse. How many U of Toronto users have edited in the past is not important; how many might edit in the future is. NE Ent 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But they're not independent variables: the number of past editors from that range has a very, very high correlation with the number who might edit from it in the future. You're basically arguing against all {{

schoolblock}}s. Rangeblocks with little current collateral damage are made all the time, on the assumption that future collateral damage will be small, too. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. Indeed I am. Sue says "a fall in the number of new people volunteering to edit articles and administer the site that is the biggest concern." and "Wikipedia is also recruiting new editors through partnerships with universities" Range blocking universities seems like it would not be helping those concerns. NE Ent 22:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:JIMBOSAID has been superseded by WP:SUESAID! Seriously, though, I would hazard a guess (unsupported by hard data) that the number of potential new editors we lose from all rangeblocks on university ranges with very few current edits by legitimate editors is smaller than the number of current editors we would lose if we stopped all such rangeblocks, and expected current editors to continuously deal with problematic editors hopping IP's. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 22:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced. But. A phone call or email to the uni IT guy with a few IP addresses and times, and an explanation that if it persists we'll have to block the whole lab, might generate a warning that the user will heed. I'd be happy to do it. (Bedtime here though.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone calculated an appropriate range block? I generally screw it up if I try to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Either we give the IT guy dates, times, contributions, etc., or we don't bother him. It's not outing to put together things that are already online, and if we deem a violation bad enough to warrant real-life intervention, we should do what we can to enable that intervention. IT guy isn't going to appreciate being told "hey someone caused problems on Wikipedia with one of your computers"; if we want him to do something, we should give him the tools to do it. If we don't think that the person doing this should be found by IT, then we shouldn't bring IT into it. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

IT will know who the guy is from his log-in details and the times we give him. There is no need for the IT guy to know what the user has been writing. Disclosing that would be against the spirit if not the letter of outing - and it would be unnecessary anyway. If we don't get the hoped-for response from IT man, or if the user ignores IT man's warning, we can go to plan B. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But IT won't know what the vandal is doing. If I'm the IT guy, I won't trust an email or phone call from some random person that says "So-and-so was being bad on Wikipedia" without evidence; I'll ignore it and be annoyed at the Wikipedia employee for wasting my time. Your approach would work for an IT guy who knows how Wikipedia works, because he'll know about Special:Contributions, but we can't assume that to be the case, so we'll have to connect the dots for him if we want anything to happen. WP:OUTING only covers information that's not been put on Wikipedia by the user in question, and giving IT guy a link to Special:Contributions/IPaddresshere is the farthest possible thing from that. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well. I can't guarantee you the IT people will respond with a firm quiet word to the user, but it is worth a try. It's one phone call and one day. If it works, the computer lab won't be range blocked. A responsible IT guy would probably think that's worth having. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm no CIDR expert, but either 142.150.49.100/26 or the more conservative 142.150.49.110/27 sound like they would do the job. — 

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

23:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's 6:30 pm in Toronto. If the range block hasn't been made in 14 hours, I'll make the phone call. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Can we go back to square one just for a moment? I blocked an editor who was clearly up to no good. Let's assume there's consensus for the block. Now we're discussing a range block, what it should be, and how many possible addresses it would trap (PinkAmpers&, you didn't say how many). But is a range block justified? We have a bunch of IPs making unconstructive edits in the range, but, if I recall, when I last looked at Binksternet's list, only two have edited recently, one of whom is now blocked. If this were vandalism, wouldn't recent disruption play a role in whether a range block is warranted? It's one thing to use the history to say that the IP I blocked was adequately warned because we're assuming it's probably the same person, but it's another to range block when the history is fairly old.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• If our
  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
  23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Edit filters consume a limited resource, and shouldn't be used when a range block will do the trick. I can't see any downside in soft-blocking 142.150.49.0/24. Remember that the primary purpose of a block is preventative, and we have a very good reason to expect problematic editing to occur from this range. Like others have said, if I had just encountered this on my own, I would have blocked the range without hesitation.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• That would block up to 256 IPs, right?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. Then again, the CUs take out Mangoeater ranges by the 65,000, if I'm not mistaken. — 
  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
  00:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. After a recent discussion, I rangeblocked pretty much the entire University of South Florida because of him. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I still don't understand how he can hop IPs from city to city so easily. Are there really that many proxies out there? — 
  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
  11:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That rangeblock was for a different user, not Mangoeater. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, is someone really proposing to call U of Toronto's IT department because an IP-hopping anon editor is editing "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Are you trying to stop the anti-Russian edits or get some kid kicked out of university? If it is the former, just apply a rangeblock as suggested. When editors call the workplaces of other editors with whom they are in conflict, people here are justifiably up in arms about it, but when an editor gets labelled a "vandal" it seems like anything goes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if abuse continues, I'd rather us get someone reprimanded by their university through WP:Abuse response than have a rangeblock affect potentially hundreds of potentially good editors. True, we don't call the workplaces/homes/etc. of other EDITORS with whom they're in conflict. A vandal, especially an IP one for which the contact info is known, is easy to take care of by reporting it to the network administrator. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Making a small group of computers require logging in before editing has essentially no real-life impact: getting someone in trouble with his IT department does. This is a trivial block. Trivial. Standard procedure for an educational institution, as well. I'm going ahead with it, and let's see if it fixes the problem.—Kww(talk) 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I was not considering the worst case there. Mmm. I guess that just leaves range blocking. Oh well. Support range block. Thank you DC for your humanity and moral compass. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A good block? No. You risk blocking access to other contributors from the same establishment. This could, in turn, potentially make enemies of people who might otherwise be good friends. And it ct certainly won't deter a persistent vandal or POV pusher. The best approach might be attrition. Let them continue, there are enough watchers to revert inappropriate content, and they will eventually lose interest; find a girlfriend or take up another more rewarding hobby.

Blocking will potentially only prolong the challenge and make them more determined and potentially alienate many others - it will probably do more bad than good. Credibility gap (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be honest: Anyone who goes onto Wikipedia from a school, library, or public hotspot (but especially a school) isn't really surprised if the IP's blocked. I distinctly remember looking something up on Wikipedia in 7th grade, only to get a "New Messages" banner linking me to a notice informing us that our school had been blocked for repeatedly claiming that Chuck Norris had created the Universe. {{

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

11:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Again we discuss whether to impose a largish range block, or whether to tolerate disruption for maximum anyone can edit [from anywhere, even from IPs that are currently abusing Wikipedia]. That's a worthwhile discussion, but there should be more attention given to the side effects of disruption on keeping new and established editors. Being helpless in the face of a problem like this is highly irritating to many existing editors, and the drip-drip effect inevitably causes some to leave due to the stupidity of repeatedly dealing with the same stuff when a range block would cause many vandals to lose interest. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 15 February 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.

HELPPPPPP

Hi! This user or administrator

Greater London Urban Area) besides threat blocks if he contradicts him. I would want to ask you if it is possible to stop this attitude of his in style dictatorship. Thanks--Music&Co (talk

) 23:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you're involved in a garden-variety

BWilkins←✎

) 23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, spamming several noticeboards is not a good idea Music&Co. As Bwilkins stated above, edit warring has nothing but bad consequences. Discuss at the talk page and you'd be fine. —

²¹

00:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest, but I hope that you have observed the content of data from him brought respect to the urban area of london, that doesn't correspond to the reality, that besides it is already already also documented on a page of tested wikipedia. As it can be that in a chart of urban areas, is inserted the data of a city proper, and cannot be changed because someone threat to stop you..I think that this is absurd. However, thanks! Hi--Music&Co (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you a) speak English, and b) read

BWilkins←✎

) 02:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

a) is a ridiculous request. NE Ent 03:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. One doesn't have to be a masterful speaker of English, but one does have to a a conversational command of the language. I certainly wouldn't go to the German Wikipedia and expect to be able to be a full-fledged editor there. We have every right to expect people that are editing content here to be able to converse in English sufficiently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Any person whose English level is too low to handle a simple discussion (in writing), or to understand our policies, shouldn't be doing any real content editing here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? Saying "speak English" is not going to improve their language skills. It's like asking a jockey to slam dunk -- unless we believe Musci&Co is intentionally using poor English? NE Ent 14:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User Music&Co, the entire article of Largest urban areas of the European Union is based on an independent source, this is neutral. Article not used national, domestic and other non-neutral or not-reliable sources. Similarly, the article of List of metropolitan areas in Europe. These two articles in its current form there are for years, you can not make changes to the form of the article without consensus, adding additional sources and new data only for London and Madrid. Do not forget also that if you made of controversial edits, can be withdrawn and you must first discuss, according to

here or here. First: discuss and consensus, later: changes. Subtropical-man (talk

) 10:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User Music&Co still make controversial changes, rather than first discuss, let someone talk to him or block this user. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad English for first thing (SONO ITALIANO!!) My trash English make sensation more than the Sanremo Music Festival Awards :) ihihihi However besides the United Nation Table, the true reality is that

• City of London (business center) = 7000
• Great London (city proper) = +8 million
• Great London Urban Area (urban area) = +11 million
• Great London Metropolitan Area (meter area) = 14 million.

I have ascertained the nature of source, and that the whole page concerns him to that source. I believe that however it need to specify this page that this table keeps in mind only of a source (what it is not of certain the only believable to the world..). I believe that need to specify..--Music&Co (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This data are wrong, this is nonsense.

Greater London Urban Area is not urban area, this is statistical area defined by the Office for National Statistics. Urban area is part of urban geography and demography, urban area is not statistical formation. Please do not confuse two different things: Greater London Urban Area (statistical) and London urban area (urban geography/demography). What is it "Great London (city proper)"? There is Greater London with a population of 8 milion, but this is not "city proper". Not exist "Great London Metropolitan Area", there is London metropolitan area. Furthermore, stop spamming - what you write about London here? just here [246]. Subtropical-man (talk

) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Subtropical-man, skipping his antipathy (!!) and his conceitedness (!!) I don't intend to go further to this discussion. I don't need your explanations, also because I have a degree in geography and statistic;) can you say the same for you?!! however I wanted to contribute in the English version of these articles, but there is a coeso monopoly, I am very more satisfactory and exhaustive the Italian version, very more democratic and less dull. Stop.

For view only:

• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_metropolitana
• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_di_aree_metropolitane_del_mondo_per_popolazione
• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aree_metropolitane_europee#Lista_delle_aree_metropolitane_pi.C3.B9_popolose_d.27Europa

Ciao.--Music&Co (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Music&Co, we have already pointed out to you that Wikipedia is about sources. For ranking urban areas by population, we need to have one single source for the whole list to be consistent, as different sources can use different measurements. When Subtropical-man reverts you, he is not being unfriendly in any way, he is merely following the guidelines. So should you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your discourse, I understand the choice effected of the English wikipedia, and that you are trying to mediate the conflict with "Subtropical", but however he has been enough unpleasant indeed. In every case I have decided that here I don't have to contribute anymore because this your method is too much rigid and limitative. (It would be more opportune to my notice to put about ten sources and data, not a solo that is given as gives absolute). Good job to everybody. Hi--Music&Co (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Statistics posted to ridicule WP inconsistencies

Wrong venue Blackmane (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

If you look at the top of List of religious populations, there is a chart of world religion populations. Examining the chart and the text below it, you can see that the chart was put up to point out problems with the statistics. (As if editors aren't aware that there are mistakes on Wikipedia.)

The time the person took to compile the statistics and create the graph could have been used to correct the statistics.

Would someone please examine this chart and determine if it should be deleted. Martinw1200 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Johnson (talk

) 16:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia administrator app?

I'm overseas, my laptop power supply died, so now I'm accessing Wikipedia from my phone. Wikipedia has a nice Android app that's okay for looking things up, but not much else.

It's impossible to do any administrator work from that app, and rather cumbersome to use the non-mobile website with all the panning and zooming needed to get anything done.

Is there a Wikipedia mobile app that's designed for administrator use? ~

talk

) 11:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we need one? Personally I find it hard enough editing on my iPad, too easy to mis-click something - so the risks are massively increased when you have a bunch of extra buttons. GiantSnowman 11:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I figured as much but thought it didn't hurt to ask. ~

talk

) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to add to my collection of passwords to Wikipedia administrator accounts. 1 down, 1450 to go. Prodego ^talk 01:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Peanut Gallery Question: Is there that much of an understaffing in the Mop brigade that one janitor taking some vacation causes the entire place to fall down? I wouldn't think so, so a Administrator app seems like overkill. Hasteur (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer: People posted requests on my talk page about administrator actions I took before I left. Responding to them required my use of administrative tools, which I could not realistically use from a mobile device. It isn't a matter of things falling down when one janitor goes on vacation, it's all about accepting responsibility for actions taken before the vacation started. ~

talk

) 09:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we turn off the interwiki tag?

Being discussed at

✉

00:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

With the coming of Wikidata, and the large-scale removal of interwiki links that it has brough about, I wonder if it would be possible to turn off the "Removal of interwiki link" (filter 270) and "Removal of all interwiki links" (filter 531) tags. Seeing them repeatedly in my watchlist and Recent Changes is a little distracting, and at least slows down examination of the tags we still need to worry about. Thanks in advance! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to do it, but they're still catching vandalism, e.g. Special:AbuseLog/8290508. Note that it's not good to remove the tags willynilly; we should check each removal to ensure that all the links removed from WP articles is on the WD page. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Can the filter check whether it's on Wikidata? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The filters are being left on to catch removals, as not all links are on Wikidata. --Rschen7754 10:00, 18 February 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.

Krste Misirkov

Hello. I have a problem with one or two users on the article Krste Misirkov. For a long period in the introduction states that Misirkov is the first publisher of modern book and magazine in Macedonian and it's supported by a relible source. The user StanProg deleted the phrase and wrote Central Macedonian dialect, which is not what the source states. I reverted it, and gave detailed explanation about the revert and the nonsense he wrote. He did not answer and avoids talk pages. Soon after another user cam and reverted me and gave Stans explanation. Is it agitation? I need help.

• Stan's edit 1 and 2

• Alisa's edit

Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Since Alisa's revert was in the context of a large edit that changed unrelated content, it's possible that it was an accident caused by an edit conflict -- maybe you could ask? Also I note that your edit summary of "rv nonsense" does not exactly encourage cooperation. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My edit was based on the already provided sources (not by me). The first source just claims "Macedonian" (but it's not specified if it's language or dialect), the second "Central Macedonian dialect"/"централното македонцко наречiе" (the source is Misirkov himself), the third one was dead link to a Macedonian daily newspaper. So what I did is to clarify that it's about the dialect, not the language, that was established later, in 1944. From a linguistic point of view, the text is written in dialect, equally close to the Bulgarian language and to the Macedonian language, that's why it is better if it's specified neutrally just as Misirkov defined it "Central Macedonian dialect". All this I explained in the article's talk page [247]. No question was directed to me in my talk page, so I was not aware that the editor has started a discussion regarding my change. I'm not avoiding talk pages. I have not agitated the editor User:Алиса Селезньова and we have not exchanged any internal (in Wikipedia) or external messages with her. I was also not being notified about this discussion - I understood about it while checking the contributions of User:MacedonianBoy. --StanProg (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

First, generally accepted notion is that the book is one of the first written books in Macedonian. Second, it is far, far from Bulgarian. Third, the book is not the first written in Central Macedonian dialect, there many before it. Fourth, only in Bulgaria you are confused what Macedonian is (if it was dialect, it would be written dialect). I rewrote the first part of the intro, and its according two sources provided. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, my attempts to solve the dispute by rewriting the introduction in NPOV according to secondary sources, Stan reverted me and accused me of vandalism. Well respected authors are seen as vandalism by him.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I was three times reverted, blindly reverted by him. He does not like to solve the issue. He removes sourced text, he gives partial quotes and deletes my full quotes. He does not even talk about the issue, he imagines something about facts templates etc. Please help.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

New template shortcuts to help y'all

Move along.

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.

---

• Also because I am supremely lazy. {{
  ✉
  00:28, 19 February 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.

Special:PendingChanges header needs to be changed

I'm not sure if I should put this here, or at

WP:RFPP or a Village Pump, since MediaWiki messages

is inactive. The current wording of the header reads:

By default, edits to pages under pending changes protection are not displayed to readers until an administrator or reviewer authorizes them. Only administrators and reviewers can make edits which do not require review.

The current message seems to only apply to PC level 2(which currently isn't in widespread use). I would suggest changing the wording to something like:

Edits to pages under pending changes protection (level one) by unregistered and new users are not displayed to readers until an administrator or reviewer authorizes them. Confirmed users can make edits to level one that go live immediately as long as there are no pending changes by unregistered or new users. Edits to pages under pending changes protection (level two) are not displayed to readers until an administrator or reviewer authorizes them. Only administrators and reviewers can make edits to level two articles which do not require review.

Crazynas ^t 20:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, both at MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list/en-gb and MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list. I used your wording with one change: rewording the bit about reviewers and admins to get rid of "authorizes", since that results in a US/UK spelling difference. Both pages now have precisely the same text; do we need to keep the en-gb one? If not, it should be G6 deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is all of English Wikipedia broken now? Jester of the court (sock) 22:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Confused; what do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he's saying it doesn't matter if the two pages have the exact same text. I have no opinion. —Rutebega (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ents have long memories [248]] Jester of the court (sock) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if it might be that, but I didn't break anything...this time :-) Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! What is (or was) the purpose of MediaWiki:Pendingchanges-list/en-gb? Crazynas ^t 23:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous text, like your proposal, twice used "authorizes", and the en-gb page used "authorises". It's a trivial enough difference that I don't see the need for it in the first place, and there's definitely no need to have two pages with precisely the same wording, since the software will default to the text on the en page if we delete the en-gb page. If your preferences are set to British English, you'll see the en-gb page instead of the en page that everyone else sees. I found both by accident — I've never figured out how to search MW-space pages properly, so I used WhatLinksHere for one of the linked pages and found that it was linked by both en and en-gb. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

180.215.206.78 Trolling

The user—or users—at the IP address

talk

) 00:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

31 hour block on the IP for obvious disruption. In the future, cases this obvious can be reported to

WP:AIV. Someguy1221 (talk

) 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! And thanks for the clarification on procedures. --

talk

) 00:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by Born2cycle

I'm going to preface this close with this: As I say with all of my admin actions, this being no exception,

I am agreeable

to being reverted by an uninvolved admin if my reading is egregiously wrong or inappropriate. I don't pretend to be the perfect closer with the perfect outcome. What I do do is try to summarize the discussion as neutrally as I can but naturally my own opinions will get mixed in at some level no matter what I do to mitigate that. This topic is obviously contentious and excellent points have been made by both sides by folks who like and dislike B2C.

First, some humor. I noted North8000 said "We have national holidays for people who refused to give up on something when they were initially outnumbered" and it was later quoted by HiLo48 saying "North has made the wisest comment in this thread so far." I just want to point out that others have

faced house arrest

or worse for the same.

This discussion has centered on two main ideas:

1. Born2Cycle is one of Wikipedia's experts on article titles and is incredibly precise and well verse in Wikipedia policy on the matter. I found very little discussion about him being wrong and even those supportive of the topic ban have mentioned how well he knows his stuff. Several have said that he is usually right.

2. However, even Born2Cycle has said that being right does not excuse being disruptive.

WP:IDHT

behaviors during a discussion and hounding the opposition is not helpful. It discourages uninvolved editors to participate, it raises tensions, and it puts folks in a more defensive mode than collaborative.

I find that there is strong consensus for some kind of sanction. By strong, I mean overwhelming to the opposes. Are many of these folks involved with B2C and unbiased? Perhaps, but since when has that devalued their opinion? Unfortunately, getting B2C to see the light has not solved this problem in the long term. On the other hand, topic banning this user from move discussions and article titles is going to deprive Wikipedia of expertise.

So I'm going to take a little bit of discretion, I apologize, and close with a mix of Option A, Option B, and Option D: Born2Cycle is under a limited discussion ban at the discretion of an uninvolved admin when his behavior becomes counter productive to the discussion. Meaning: An uninvolved admin may ban him from a particular discussion he is involved in on a case by case basis after a warning that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in. This includes discussions about the close of a move or article titles discussion anywhere on Wikipedia.

I know I took some artistic prerogative in developing the sanction, so if my talk page blows up with opposition then I'll revisit and revert myself. I also realize that I am putting a huge burden on my fellow admins by forcing them to consider each discussion on it's own merits, but there is significant rationale in the below discussion not to ban him from the entire topic or to limit him to a single post. But I think this is a fair compromise that addresses everyone's concerns.--v/r - TP 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Amendment: I was asked to set a time period for this sanction and it was informally and briefly discussed on my talk page. This sanction will automatically expire after 1 year but Born2Cycle can request it be lifted earlier at the community's discretion.--v/r - TP 20:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I have never brought a situation to AN before, but the situation with

WP:REHASH

might also have been written with him in mind. His main interest at Wikipedia is article titles.

For background, Born2cycle has been brought before the community on two previous occasions that I know of. The first was a case at AN, specifically about him, January 19-21, 2012, suggesting that he be topic-banned from discussions about requested moves; the result was that he promised to improve his editing pattern, and the request for a topic ban was suspended. The second was an ArbCom case about a larger issue, opened in January 2012 and closed in March, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision, with one of the results being "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." I was not involved in either of those cases and was not aware of them until recently.

I have engaged with Born2cycle about the convention

WP:USPLACE on numerous occasions. He is determined to overturn this convention and replace it with a "no unnecessary disambiguation" policy, and for years his relentless pursuit of that goal has dominated every related discussion or move request. The current case is here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment. A very recent previous example is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names. An example from last August is at Talk:Beverly Hills, California

; he didn't notice the discussion until after it had been closed, whereupon he declared the close "premature" and immediately launched a new discussion on the topic so he could participate.

In the current case, as in all previous cases, he has dominated the discussion both in terms of number of posts (hopefully someone with the necessary tools can provide statistics) and in terms of number of words. He challenged commenters who disagreed with his position, arguing with their rationales and demanding that they respond to his criticisms. If someone did respond to his points, he dismissed their response as "

WP:JDLI",[249] [250] no matter how reasoned and policy-based their response was. If someone wanted to discuss something other than his points, he dismissed their responses as "filibustering".[251] He insists that his interpretation of titling policy is the only correct one, and repeatedly says that the issue will continue to be "contentious" and "unresolved" until it is decided in accordance with what he believes to be policy.[252] [253] Numerous people at the current discussion found his attitude problematic.[254] [255] [256]

The requested statistics showing B2C's domination of the talk page in question are here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

He disrespected editors who disagreed with him. Example: "I realize no change is possible here also until enough finally realize how silly their position is."[257] He later attempted to "apologize" for that comment by saying "If anyone is being silly, for example, I suspect they don't realize it."[258] He also remarked that "blind conformance with the City, State convention" is the "hobgoblin of the little minds" who support the current convention.[259]

After he had a particularly contentious exchange with another editor, I posted a reminder of his past issues and his promise to change his editing style. (Full disclosure: I also called him "insufferable".)[260] His response in its entirety was "And... we're back to more filibustering!"[261] He then posted a note at my talk page, where he accused me of "disruptive editing," and copy-pasted all my contributions to the discussion (which I welcome anyone to review).[262]

Somebody suggested that he "take a breather" from that discussion,[263] and when he did, the discussion immediately dried up. There have been two three four additional !votes, but no further discussion. It was obvious that his participation had been the only thing propelling the "controversy". (Later comment: the fact that people are continuing to !vote, without additional discussion, since B2c stopped posting suggests that this kind of RfC works BETTER without all the verbiage and argumentation.)

At the same time, he has apparently been engaged in similar behavior at an RM discussion,

Talk:National Pension Scheme#Requested move 2. I was not following that discussion, which resulted in a note about "unhelpful and disruptive behavior on your part", posted on his talk page by User:Huwmanbeing. The comment deplored "your tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own", and concluded "Editors contributing in good faith to an RfC or RM shouldn't face being drowned out, nor face having their statements persistently pursued or dismissed, and I'd ask you to please keep this in mind."[264]. Born2cycle's reply did not acknowledge any problems with his behavior, and implied that the only basis for complaints about him is "people who are involved in disagreements with me".[265] Joining the conversation, I warned him I was considering taking him to ANI, and he replied by once again accusing me of disrupting the USPLACE discussion. His second reply to Huw was to deny any disruption on his part, and express puzzlement as to what Huw could possibly be talking about.[266]

He has written (and links to in discussions) an essay, Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, in which he dismisses as "stonewalling" virtually all arguments in defense of the status quo (in his view, even good faith arguments in favor of the status quo are likely based on "denial" and "rationalization"), and pre-emptively defends himself against accusations of tendentious editing and TLDR posting.

It seems clear that he has NOT changed his editing style from the problems that brought him to AN a year ago and caused him to get a warning from ArbCom, and he has no insight into why his approach to editing may be considered problematic. The question is, what to do about it? There are various options.

OPTION A. Topic-ban from move discussions (and possibly RfCs at policy pages as well, such as the discussion I described above). This was the original proposal made at AN last year, suspended when he promised to change. I am reluctant to propose this, because titling is his main focus at Wikipedia, and he has done productive work in this area. However, it may be that nothing less will solve the problem.

OPTION B. Limited topic-ban for move discussions (and possibly for policy RfCs as well). This could take a form such as: he could make ONE comment, stating his opinion on the proposal at issue and his rationales. But he could not follow up or engage with other editors, because that is when he gets tendentious.

OPTION C. Warning and promise to change. That didn't work last time.

OPTION D. Warning and promise to change, with supervision. One or more admins would keep an eye on his posting patterns, and if he continues his problematic editing they could issue a topic ban or other recourse without further discussion.

OPTION E. No warning or finding against him.

I apologize for the length of this nomination, but it's a longstanding problem and I wanted to be thorough. I solicit the community's consensus with regard to this editor and will respect any decision. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If I were to choose one of the options above, it would be option B, a limited topic ban where he could express his opinion but could not challenge the opinions of others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a pretty TLDR opening statement, but I would suggest to you that noticeboards generally do not do a good job at handling long-term behavioral issues and they certainly don't do a good job at picking between five differebt options. I would suggest
  talk
  ) 17:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  MelanieN's coming here is partly due to me - see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Advice?. My general view of RFC/U is not especially favourable, largely because it has no power to actually do anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Option B, or A as second option -- since he's already been warned at ARBATC that his contributions must reflect "higher tolerance for the views of other editors", and your diffs above show this has not occurred, action should be taken. I don't see anything wrong with having the discussion here, but you might want to consider WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should the discussion not determine a strong consensus in any particular direction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A, or B as second option. When you're persistently disruptive in a field, avoid being banned by promising to start behaving, and continue being disruptive, we should implement the ban that was avoided in the first place. Someone who persistently advocates a bad idea against consensus is attempting to harm the encyclopedia, and someone who persistently advocates a good idea against consensus is trying to game the system. Regardless of which it is, the disruption needs to be stopped. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A as B2C's behavior is long-term, per Nyttend above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd accept Option B as well, if that's where consensus is going. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option F - if you're bothered by B2C's comments, ignore them. There is no consensus at
  WP:TE to muzzle people we disagree with? I ask, because that's how it's being used here.

  On my talk page I asked how WP is being disrupted by my behavior[267]. Instead of anyone answering there, this AN was started, still without an answer to my question. --Born2cycle (talk

  ) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called "filibustering". It's used several times on this very page, and I believe you're familiar with the term already. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I presume you're not conflating "any large amount of discussion" (regardless of purpose or motivation) with "filibustering". Filibustering is using discussion specifically for the purpose of delaying or avoiding decision-making. That's disruptive, of course. If you have an example of me actually doing that, please show me where, and identify what decision I was trying to delay with discussion. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm conflating nothing, your attempts to blow smoke notwithstanding. Your "question" -- such as it was -- was answered, and, as is usual with you, you didn't like the answer and thought that a

blizzard of words would obscure that. Pretty much a good illustration of your problem, actually, so thanks for helping. --Calton | Talk

17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Referring to "filibustering" to the question, "What, exactly, was disrupted [by my behavior]?", conveniently without specifying what progress was impeded where by the alleged "filibustering", is like responding with "granite" to the question, "What is the largest mammal on earth?". It's not an answer to the question. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, please see my response to your "question" on your talk page. (Full disclosure: my response was posted there AFTER B2C raised it again here.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, given that one of your bits of bad behavior is constantly demanding to be told what you're doing wrong over and over again, indulging in your latest round of

WP:IDHT would be a mug's game. Especially since your opinion about whether I've proved anything to YOUR satisfaction is completely irrelevant, since it's not your decision to make here. But tell you what: you explain, exactly, how progress was "impeded by the alleged 'filibustering'" where YOU used the term, then I'll think about it. But not very hard. --Calton | Talk

07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refer to my questions/requests for clarification as demands. Yours are not demands, and neither are mine. But, for the record, when I accuse someone of filibustering, I will back it up, if requested (at least as soon as I notice the request; I did not see this request until now).

The comment which I characterized as "more filibustering" was one of dozens made by MelanieN in that RfC proposal discussion that did not address the proposal, in an obvious and undisputed effort to avoid discussing the proposal itself by trying to get the RfC closed. The discussion about the substance of the proposal is much more difficult for others to follow and contribute when it is riddled with fits and starts of non-substantive discussions. I tried to isolate these unrelated disruptive tangents with sub-sections, where possible. This particular comment, contrary to

stonewall, for that matter), even when I favor the status quo. --Born2cycle (talk

) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1

• Option A. Given that B2C's behavior is long-standing and repeated, and that previous warnings, a threatened topic ban, and even promises of reform have failed to curb it, I think that option A is the only path likely to avoid further continued disruption. ╠╣uw [talk] 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A. Period. Reading the pages will make your eyes bleed. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, reading the pages is also the only way to fairly evaluate the situation. Are you encouraging people participating here to not do that? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you have a reading deficit? Because it would take a massive one to generate that conclusion.
    • To help you out: 1) the statement "Reading the pages will make your eyes bleed" is a description of the problem. 2) You are the cause of the problem. 3) Therefore, topic-banning you will solve said problem.
    • If that's not clear, I could translate it into Pig Latin for you. --Calton | Talk 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Excuse me for saying something, Calton, but I don't think this approach is helping the discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

        I'm not playing his game here: if wants to make up stuff about the plain English I wrote, he can expect pushback. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A would certainly help WP work more smoothly. B2C's usual mode is essentially filibustering, and generally acting on the assumption that if his voluminous points are not all refuted to his satisfaction, then he should get his way. The energy he pours into titles and related policy therefore requires a greater effort from others to try to restrain him. I don't know what Melanie means by "he has done productive work in this area", as I consider all the things he managed to push through at
  WP:USPLACE shortly after losing a big RFC there, trying to make all city article titles as concise as possible. Dicklyon (talk
  ) 04:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I have sometimes asked his opinion on how to title a particular article and found him helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• As a matter of principle, prefer Option B over option A. But in Option B, allow a brief specific answer to any specific question, with answers to questions requesting elaboration to be made on the questioner's usertalk page. Brevity in responses and followups is a likely helpful solution for someone accused of verbosity and tendentiousness. I advise B2C to commit to attempting this voluntarily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but FWIW, option D sounds reasonable, though it requires that someone "mind" this editor to some extent. Option A might work better, or a variant of it that focused on particular article naming topics that B2C has been tendentious about. (an expandable list, should the tendentiousness spread). Option A, while probably frustrating at first, would be less likely to feel oppressive/creepy, since B2C wouldn't be being followed around by a watcher. Option B, even as clarified by Smokeyjoe, sounds complicated. I have basically nothing but a vote of no confidence in AE, an ArbCom more generally, on AT/MOS topics until the applicability of and sanctions available under
  WP:WIKIHOUNDs take note: I have said nothing personalizing about B2C, and am addressing the user's editing pattern, as presented by the evidence above, not the editor personally.] — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib.
  11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • However you want to look at it? Is that another way of saying surely there is some rule somewhere that B2C is violating; let's not bother with finding out exactly which one and how he has breached it?

    It is my understanding that

    WP:BATTLEGROUNDing - I normally pay almost no attention to who is commenting, only to what is said.

    I think this illustrates that there is no actual guideline/policy to which my behavior does not adhere. That does not mean there is no problem, but that sanctioning me is unfair, until that behavior is properly recognized and described in writing in a policy that can be fairly applied to everyone. --Born2cycle (talk

    ) 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I obviously mean by "however you want to look at it" that all of those policies and guidelines (and more besides, e.g.
      editing from a neutral point of view instead. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib.
      22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I too would prefer D, but I can't see much chance of it working (and am not volunteering for the job). Otherwise, I'd go for Option A with B as second choice. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option A. Discussion is vital, of course, but it is very difficult to have productive discussions with B2C, and this is a longstanding problem involving many editors. About 73% of his nearly 20,000 edits are on talk pages -- which in itself is not necessarily negative, as all editors are different. But considering the difficulties that have frequently appeared on his own talk page over several years, and the fact that a year ago he promised to change but doesn't seem to have done so, I am not sure what would really help aside from option A. Omnedon (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option B: I don’t think silencing B2C is appropriate as suggested by Option A, but I do think limiting him to stating his position once without the license to challenge and essentially berate anyone who disagrees with him is warranted. The following is typical of his style: Note to the closer: If you are about to close this discussion as "no consensus", I urge you to review the sordid history of the debate over the title of the main article, and to not make the same mistake that multiple closers made there year after year - ignoring the strength of the arguments supporting a move, and instead essentially counting !votes, and closing such discussions as "no consensus". That happened at least 7 times over at least 8 years, before logic and reason finally prevailed. Don't let that happen here. Please. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [269] He thus threatens any closer who makes a decision contrary to his position. In my experience it is not an idle threat either, as he will take follow-on actions to essentially bludgeon admins and the community to comply with his position. Giving B2C continued license to behave this way will continue to disrupt the community.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B (broadly considered; i.e., if the same matter comes up again, he is not allowed to comment even once, except perhaps to refer briefly to a previous comment.), or possibly Option A. It's been shown options C E F do not work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B as first choice, Option A as a second choice. B2C has shown that he's not willing to accept consensus once it is decided and is instead willing to overwhelm Wikipedia with his feelings on matters of article titles, especially as it relates to U.S. placenames, until through sheer power of will, he can discourage participation from others rather than change consensus. That's the definition of tendentious editing, and while I don't see the need to prevent him from giving is opinion, once, on any discussion, the incessant badgering and
  WP:IDHT repetitiveness of his involvement in these discussions needs to cease. --Jayron32
  17:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B. I'd prefer D but who's going to do it? b2c makes good points in move discussions. But, unfortunately, he does have the tendency to keep making them :) Hopefully, option B will give us the best of both worlds. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  After reading some of the comments below (ErikHaugen, PBS, etc.), I should add that I agree that B2C generally makes good points and should definitely not be silenced. The caveat is that he can be excessively persistent, almost (if not quite) to the point of tendentiousness. There is nothing wrong with arguing a point to death if you're not the only one holding a view but, if you keep doing that after a consensus has been established, that can be very frustrating. If b2c voluntarily agreed to back off when he's losing an argument, that would be perfect. But, I note that that's already been tried. With some trepidation, I'm willing to serve as his "time to shut up" mentor for option D if that's something people are willing to consider. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option B which should hopefully allow him to comment without the IDHT and filibustering problems, and only if that does not work, then Option A. Black Kite (talk)
• Option G,
  trout-wacking all around. As can be seen here, the vast majority of the comments come from B2C and the three next most prolific contributors. Surely blaming B2C alone for tendentious editing is not the most fair approach; the opposition is guilty of the same sin just as much (actually, slightly more). If any measures are to be taken against B2C, they should be applied equally to his most vociferous opponents. But I still think all-around trouting is the best outcome here. Heck, trout me as well for the good measure—I certainly could have made fewer (and shorter) comments there!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?
  ); February 11, 2013; 19:18 (UTC)
  • Or not. Defending policy and guideline pages against concerted POV pushing against already-established consensus is not what is meant by
    tendentious editing. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib.
    22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Not quite sure what to make of this comment. Depending on one's angle of view, either side can be seen as defending policy and guideline pages against concerted POV pushing against already-established consensus. It's precisely because such "defending" spun out of control (with mutual accusations of POV-pushing, some subtler than others) a thorough trout-whacking is in order. Whatever definition of "tendentious editing" you use, both sides are guilty of it roughly equally.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 13, 2013; 14:40 (UTC)
    • It appears that about 35% of the edits to
      WT:PLACE are by B2C; the vast majority are by B2C and the next three contributors. I'd like to see the statistics by bytes added, though; I suspect B2C has the vast majority all by himself. The fact that he continues making the same arguments repeatedly in both (active) RfCs doesn't help matters much, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk)
      07:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The statistics by bytes have been provided below, under the section titled "Central issue? Is "arguing a point to death" necessarily wrong?" --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment.
  1. WP:TE
     is an essay and is not grounds for sanctioning.
  2. WP:USPLACE
     . I never bring up the issue there. Others do. And every time I am not the only one who favors change. Yes, there is no consensus to change, but there is also no consensus to keep, so there is no evidence that community consensus is to move on.

  3. People
     don't like
     how much and how often I participate in some discussions, especially (but not only) if they disagree with my position. I get that. But unless and until that, and just that, is explicitly recognized as disruptive behavior that is not tolerated by the community, I should not be sanctioned for it.
  4. I would be delighted to participate with any and all of you in an effort to add something to
     WP:DE
     . It could be as simple as saying that posting more than a certain number of times to a given discussion is a sign of disruption. I will of course abide by any such consensus supported general rule; but it's entirely unfair to expect me or anyone else to adhere to "special" unwritten rules invented specifically for that person, and not generalized and specified in writing for all to follow.

  Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Born2Cycle: Small note regarding your first point. Although,

WP:TE is indeed an essay, it is elucidating a point in the consensus policy:[270]

The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

Crazynas ^t 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Crazynas. I admit to having editorial goals (see my user page and FAQ linked there). But I deny that the pursuit of these goals is continuous. For example, one goal of mine is to bring uniformity to USPLACE consistent with how other articles are titled, particularly other place titles (disambiguate only when necessary). But my efforts towards that goal are not continuous, which is a necessary characteristic for this section to apply (imagine if it simply said "the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive" - WP talk pages would be riddled with violations - that is, the "continuous" aspect must be present for the goal pursuit to be problematic). There are breaks in my editing towards that goal that are multiple months if not years long. It's true that whenever someone else raises the topic, I usually if not always jump in, and, arguably, with passion (comparable to what I'm bringing to this discussion now). But I think "aggressive" is overstating it (am I "aggressive" here?).

I also would like to bring your attention to these key words: "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except...". Do you believe that there is a "consensus" which I refuse to allow? If so, what consensus is that, where was it established, and how am I refusing to allow it? Again, even at the RfC proposal in question, it's still open, and there are substantial numbers on both sides... no consensus there... Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Clarification about "continuous". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I was really just pointing out that editors that argue that you are tendentious have a policy basis. My comment wasn't intended to show bias either way regarding your behavior, although from my brief look it takes (at least) two to tango. Crazynas ^t 00:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood. My point is that merely being "tendentious" (in the pure dictionary sense) is not enough to establish policy basis, not that that means there is no problem. Besides, TE is obviously intended to apply to inappropiate pushing of external views - like someone who tendentiously promotes a pro-life or anti-abortion view on WP articles and talk pages. I don't think it was intended to apply to views about internal political issues. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that consensus is a principle intended to support the fourth pillar. Crazynas ^t 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think

consensus and related concepts are fairly well defined? I do.

As to the fourth pillar, I intend for all of my interactions to be respectful and civil. I know some do not agree that is true of all of my interactions, but I find I'm usually misunderstood when people hold this view. And some people seem to react to the expression of almost any disagreement as being inherently disrespectful or uncivil. It makes it very challenging to develop consensus once you're viewed as being disrespectful or uncivil. --Born2cycle (talk

) 03:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• E—I'm just not seeing it. I've read over several of these pages that MelanieN linked to and I don't see anything terribly objectionable. B2C obviously cares about these issues and is willing to comment on them whenever the opportunity arises, but everything is on-topic and helpful for the flow of the argument, etc. B2C is not starting the same SNOW discussion over and over again in different forums, wall-of-texting, or doing anything along those lines that is terribly objectionable or disruptive. A lot of the responses from B2C are in response to attacks, so those oughtn't be sanctioned. Sheer volume isn't something we're going to ban for, is it? . What I *am* seeing in these discussions is MelanieN needlessly confronting B2C, personalizing the dispute and adding heat to the discussion.
  talk
  ) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  I think the kinds of discussions that B2C is being accused of disrupting have a tendency to go like this: A proposal is made (not by B2C), then many people (including B2C) add support or oppose bullet items with short (or not so short) arguments to back up the position. Occasionally, someone makes an indented reply, and there is much back-and-forth as arguments/issues/policies are hashed out. Later, a newcomer makes a new bullet with an already-"refuted" argument (who has time to read everything already written, after all!). Now, many would be content to leave that alone, but B2C (and many other people, including some in this discussion) will reply to the new post with either a pointer or a summary of the refutation: example. This may happen many times during an RFC or RM, as many newcomers continue to weigh in. Does anyone see a problem with this? I don't, and I want to be sure that any outcome of this discussion does not condemn this kind of thing under the guise of "B2C is causing drama again". If we're objecting to B2C's behavior other than this kind of thing that I've described here or responding directly to MelanieN's/etc accusations, can someone clarify this for me?

  talk

  ) 20:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction or restriction Born2Cycle is disruptive for commenting on an RFC started by
  talk · contribs) which isn't even close to an obvious consensus??? Lots of folks support the RFC, and, as HaugenErik mentions above, multiple editors are addressing B2C personally; so personal replies are the logical response. NE Ent
  23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It's fine to support an RfC, and fine to comment. Neither of those things are specifically the subject of the ANI. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to elect to comment for now. B2C getting involved in a topic tends to limit participation by others. Add to that the lengthy discussions and many editors find it impossible follow and comprehend. That can create a case where decisions are made without many really understanding the discussion. Or maybe a better comment is most editors don't have the time to read a novel to make decisions. I must acknowledge that over the last few years, B2C and I have been on opposite sides of many issues. If some type of edit restrictions were decided on, it might make discussions on policy and guidelines shorter and allow better participation by other editors. If that is a desirable outcome, then so be it. Does anyone know what percentage of B2Cs edits are in article space? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• 15.19%. The largest part of his contributions are on article talk pages (38.66%), followed by Wikipedia talk (25.92%). [271] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• A, or B as second option because of filibustering across countless move discussions. Jonathunder (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option E - While the recent discussions regarding US place names have been quite long and frequent, I don't think silencing Born2cycle or otherwise limiting his ability to contribute to discussions is a good option. The repeated discussions (which are rarely started by B2C) go on and on because B2C makes points over and over again and a few other editors respond to (and disagree with) all of his comments over and over again. I completely agree with Ezhiki's point above; if these discussions are getting "out-of-hand," it is because of B2C and other prolific editors who mostly oppose B2C's views. As someone who has participated (albeit briefly) in many of these RfCs, I have noticed that B2C has become an easy target for the opposition - silencing him just doesn't seem like a fair or necessary option. Cheers, Rai•me 03:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option E See
  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. One of the problems that we have is that closing admins too often close RfCs, AfDs and RMs by treating opinions as votes, and while that continues to be the case, interested parties that hold different POVs will continue to question the opinions of others in the way that B2C does. -- PBS (talk
  ) 12:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have become very concerned over the last year in the number of cases I have seen (usually after they are closed) where parties to long running disagreements are trying to get people they disagree with banned. There is a quote in the Terrorism article that I think is appropriate when slightly modified:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: tendentious [sic] is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.

As I have said several times before I think that Wikipedia processes such as this AN is an area where Wikipedia is badly broken. It can deal with new editors quite efficiently, but for high profile editors such as B2C, it is nearly impossible for an AN or ANI to deal with them fairly. This is because an AN, ANI (or user RFC) process involves editors acting as prosecutors judges and executioners, or defenders, judges and exoneraters. The current process reminds me of Members of the House of Lords trying one of their peers, before the committee of the Law Lords was created (Lord Clifford's trial (1935)). -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option E: Agree with PBS. LittleBen (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Just to note that all but one of the expressions of support for B2C came after he called attention to this discussion (in a neutral way) at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/March#Shall B2C be topic banned? . --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  MelanieN As it happens I am an administrator. Does surprise you (or any one else?) if I had this page on my watch list (along with severl 1000 others). But even if I had come here from the link you gave, would that be a reason besmirching my good faith? If not, and you have already said "he called attention to this discussion (in a neutral way)" why bring it up here? Given that you initiated this section did you consider that others would see your posting as neutral? Did you read what I wrote above about "prosecutors, judges and executioners", or are you just being tenacious in presenting you POV about B2C? The last phrase was inserted make the point about tenacious being used on Wikipeida talk pages like terrorist is in the popular press -- it may be true, but even if not it is a really good attack word with the advantage of a woolly fussy meaning As you have made this comment, I now think you have opened the door to my commenting on your initial posting to this thread. Do you really think that natural justice is served by the prosecutor listing and thereby framing a set of options as possible sanctions against the accused? Or would natural justice be better served if you had brought you complaint and the a list of possible sanctions was constructed by a disinterested third party? -- PBS (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  I am perfectly happy to see options proposed by any disinterested third party, or for that matter anyone (Born2cycle himself offered Option F, "ignore me", and Ezhiki offered option G, "trouts all around"). I simply thought it would be a useful way to frame the discussion to offer a complete range of options, including "topic ban" (which I did not recommend, but which was the recommendation discussed and suspended at ANI a year ago), three less drastic possibilities, and "take no action." If you think I left out any options, or would prefer a different framing entirely, feel free to propose. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  P.S. You need to understand: I would never have brought this discussion here if it was just a matter of how I and a few other people feel about his editing style. I brought this up because of B2C's past history of threatened sanctions at AN and a warning from Arbcom. IMO he has not lived up to the promises he made here and has not heeded Arbcom's warning here. That's why I provided such (possibly TLDR) detail in my nomination - so that people could compare his current postings to his previous promise and warning, and decide if he is living up to them or not. To me, and I suspect most Wikipedians, ignoring an Arbcom warning is a serious matter demanding community evaluation - and that evaluation is what I am seeking. That's why I titled this " Continued tendentious editing" - there's a history here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I would support what Melanie is saying. This is the result of a long-term pattern of behavior, not a simple disagreement among editors on a specific issue. B2C has been warned in the past, and gave a list of seven ways in which he would change, but the changes (if any) are not at all obvious, at least to me. Several of the editors commenting here were not involved in the two recent RfCs at

  WT:PLACE, but still recognize that there is a problem. Omnedon (talk

  ) 13:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I must not have made myself clear (or you two clearly think I am more stupid that I think I am) as I was able to read the section including the opening statement, and I think I was able to glean the information from the earlier posts in the section, that you reiterated in your replies! All my questions in the paragraph that starts "MelanieN As it happens ... " had nothing to do with the right or wrong of B2C behaviour. The first part of my posting that starts "MelanieN As it happens..." was in response to MelanieN's "Comment Just to note..." and in it I asked some specific questions about that specific posting to which no direct reply was given. The second half (that starts "As you have made this comment ...") asked some specific questions about MelanieN's construction of the initial posting to this thread and whether it construction was appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  Your questions seemed to be directed specifically at Melanie, in response to her comment. I simply supported her later statement and was not attempting to answer you. Having said that -- I see no problem with the comment she made, which you questioned; it was simply informational, and doesn't seem to draw any conclusions, nor to question your good faith or anyone else's. Do you feel her comment was directed at you? It looks like a general comment, as it has a bullet at the same level as all the other comments. Omnedon (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  In fact, PBS, I was specifically NOT talking about you. I was talking about "expressions of support for B2C," that is, people choosing Option E. In your comment you did not choose an option. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I think you are confused see my posting that starts "*Option E See ..." (at 12:19 on 12 February 2013). -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  My mistake. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  I can also confirm that I did not come across this via B2C's post there.

  talk

  ) 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  That is correct. You posted here before his post there. Your post was the "but one" I referred to in saying "all but one." --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I can also confirm that I did not come across this via B2C's post there. LittleBen (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Option E. Erik Haugen's and PBS's comments above ring true to me. Yes, B2C comments a lot, but a reading over his comments there shows them to be largely reasonable and on-topic. If he initiated these discussions all the time, rather than simply participating in them when they occur, that would be one thing, but that doesn't appear to be the case. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Option B; second choice is option A. B2C has been beating a dead horse, but he's not going to stop on his own. Unless he is reined in, B2C will continue wasting everyone else's time by continuing his single-minded pursuit of his mission to overturn
  WP:USPLACE. We can't ignore him, as some have suggested, because when he gets no response to his actions or proposals, he declares that his position is the consensus view (example). --Orlady (talk
  ) 14:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  USPLACE is controversial. A lot of people want to see it overturned. I can't imagine why the fact that he shows up at each one of these discussions might be a problem. Is B2C starting countless RFC's and whatnot despite overwhelming consensus against them? No. B2C didn't even start this last one! Can you help me understand what exactly you see here that is disruptive? I also don't see anything inappropriate about your "Cleveland_Heights" diff there. It's just a discussion about procedure and the gray area created by

  talk

  ) 17:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I note that HaugenErik asks again the question, slightly reworded, that I asked of Huw and Melanie on my talk page, at User_talk:Born2cycle#Concerns, almost a week ago, and remains unanswered. What exactly is being disrupted by my behavior? I mean, what exactly are people being disrupted from doing by my behavior? Melanie referred to Huw's original statement, who claimed "disruption of productive and inclusive debate", suggesting that there would have been "productive and inclusive debate" if not for my involvement. And the evidence for that is what? When I bow out, there is no virtually no more discussion? So, then, how was my involvement disruptive? That's not an answer. And the response of "filibustering" by Omnedon is not an answer to this question either - it's simply labeling the behavior that is allegedly disruptive in a derogatory way, without basis; it does not identify what is being disrupted.

  I also note that I did stop engaging in the discussion at the WP:PLACE RfC discussion, last month, on my own, contrary to Orlady's claim above ("he's not going to stop on his own"), and consistent with the pledge I made a year ago.

  While I'm at it, I will also point out that I CAN be ignored, and "because when he gets no response to his actions or proposals, he declares that his position is the consensus view", is not a valid excuse to not ignore me, much less sanction me. As Erik notes, the example provided by OrLady does not support that claim at all.

  What I mean is, if there is a proposal, register your position in the discussion, which should only take a few minutes, no more than this comment is taking me, preferably backed up by policy/guidelines, and move on. The closing admin will weigh your input as he or she sees fit. There is no need to engage with me or anyone else in the process of trying to reach consensus through discussion if you'd rather do something else. That's entirely voluntary, of course. It's unhelpful to engage in such discussion with someone, and then claim the other is responsible for disruption, tendentious editing, beating a dead horse, or anything else, which most (not all!) supporting sanctioning me here have done. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  Born2cycle: The nature of the complaint has already been clearly elaborated here (by a number of different contributors), repeatedly in the cited discussions (by various editors), and on

  WP:ICANTHEARYOU). ╠╣uw [talk

  ] 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Orlady you worte "We can't ignore him, ... he declares that his position is the consensus view" and gave a link as an example. Did you follow up that RM and read the links I posted above ("here and here")? If you did not, will you consider changing your opinion, and if you did how did you come to your conclusion? -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  The USPLACE guideline has been the subject of a seemingly endless series of discussions in which the same arguments are repeated, refined, and repeated again, generally including some of the same cast of characters.

  WT:PLACE

  isn't always the venue for discussion; sometimes the topic crops up on talk pages of specific articles. IMHO, at this point, positions are firmly solidified. Few newbies are going to be inclined to join the discussions because the obvious presence of a long history of the issue is off-putting. Past participants are likely disinclined to consider new ideas because they are tired of the issue and want to do something more productive than endlessly arguing about it.

I am pleasantly surprised by the news that B2C has suspended his involvement in the current discussion at

WT:PLACE. His presence so thoroughly pervaded that discussion that his renunciation of involvement wasn't obvious, but I see from the history that he has not posting there in the last 4 days, and has not posted an opinion in more than 2 weeks. I'm all in favor of a voluntary agreement to back off, if he is sincere about it. --Orlady (talk

) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to agree to some reasonable self-imposed restrictions stated clearly in terms of max number of posts (not including fix edits) per day per discussion, and max number of posts per week in a discussion exceeding some reasonable limit. But this all presumes "the problem" can be addressed by simply limiting how much I post. Others are saying it's not only how much I post, but what I post. I'm truly baffled by how often I seem to be misunderstood. Not by everyone, mind you. But definitely many who are supporting sanctions here seem to read "demands", "dismissiveness" and violations of AGF in my posts that I (and others; not just me) don't see. It seems that these supposed transgressions appear so obvious to them, that they're convinced if I don't see them, it's not even worth explaining. Omnedon and Huwmanbeing, for example, have repeatedly cited diffs of my commentary, as if they are self-evident proof of inappropriate behavior. I look at them, and for the life of me can't understand what the matter is. When I ask, I typically get no explanation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorn2cycle&diff=538276451&oldid=538154174 for example). It's very frustrating. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it is obvious that asking the same question over and over amounts to "demanding" an answer. I think it is obvious that claiming a question hasn't been answered, after people have answered it repeatedly in two different venues, amounts to IDHY. I think it is obvious that describing the other side's arguments as "JDLI "and "filibustering" and "silly" is dismissive. Since you are "truly baffled" and can't "for the life of you" understand this, it just illustrates what we are saying here: you have no insight into why people consider your editing problematic, and thus are unlikely to change your style on your own. And simply limiting how many times a day you post, is not going to solve the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@MelanieN. Just curious. Higher up the page you responded to my questions, but do you think that you gave answers to the questions? -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment above consisted almost entirely of questions; seven of the eight sentences ended in a question mark. I did not respond to all of them. I responded to what struck me as the main issue, namely, whether it was appropriate for me (as "prosecutor") to propose a list of alternatives. I replied that I had listed all the options I could think of (including doing nothing) to assist the discussion, but that I was perfectly open to other options, or even an entire new framing, if someone wanted to propose same. (I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it actually typical for prosecutors to present the various options - e.g. first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc. - as part of an indictment?) However, I failed to respond to your suggestion that when I pointed out where B2C called attention to this discussion, and noted the arrival immediately afterward of people supporting him, I was implying bad faith on the part of those posters. I should have apologized then to anyone who thought I was impugning their motives, and I do so apologize now. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I want to point out that my decision to back off from the most recent
  WT:PLACE RfC discussion, as was requested of me, demonstrates recognition of a "too many posts" problem on my part, and my desire and willingness to address it. It was weeks after I did that that this AN complaint was started, despite my cooperation with those requests. --Born2cycle (talk
  ) 01:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I have to note that such recognition was absent prior to this ANI; when I contacted you with my concerns just days before it opened[272], your response was not to acknowledge any problem on your part, but instead to insinuate that the concerns being raised were motivated by other editors' disagreement with your position.[273] Note too that the behavior has been pointed out repeatedly for months, back at least to the November RfC – after which there was also a lull in activity which did not prevent a similar recurrence in the latest one. ╠╣uw [talk] 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  "It was weeks after I did that that this AN complaint was started," Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, that's true. This complaint was NOT triggered by the RfC discussion. The thing that impelled me to file this notice was the thread on your talk page started by Huw, referred to above. That thread and your responses made me realize that 1) your problematic editing extends to many other subjects besides USPLACE, and 2) you have absolutely no insight into what is problematic about your editing. And I realized that, since you don't recognize or even acknowledge the problem, it would be impossible for you ever to correct it. Hence my decision to take the problem to the community. (I have actually explained this timing issue to you before - that I had dropped the idea of an ANI when you stopped posting at the RfC,[274] and that your "problem? what problem?" comments to Huw were the final straw causing me to launch this discussion[275] - but apparently you didn't hear me, as usual.) --MelanieN (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A, I suppose I'll have to conclude, with reluctance. I was dismayed to see that B2C is again in the midst of drama. Tony (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B. We've tried all the options C through G, none have worked. A and B are the only viable ones, IMHO. I'm prepared to give B one try so that we don't deprive ourselves of B2C's contribution and him/her of what ought to be a basic right – which he has already IMHO much abused. I'd say that not only should we limit him to one vote/comment, we should insist that that contribution ought to be limited to 250 words to cut out the drama, riposte after riposte,
  WP:IDHT. If this pattern of behaviour persists, we would be left only with option A going forwards. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke}
  07:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  If you and I agree on something, it should definitely be considered. We haven't agreed on much of anything — until now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is formatted in a manipulative and defective manner The only choice on the list that doesn't involve an implied finding of guilt is the straw man choice of doing absolutely nothing. The most viable choice some type of a warning or discussion-with-a-resolution without an explicit or implicit finding of guilt is completely missing. My impression is that this complaint is sort of a construction to get the opposition in an unresloved dispute smacked. The complainant (who has 53 edits on the talk page in the linked period) is saying that B2B's 107 edits on the talk page in 4 years (an average of 2 comments per month) during the linked period shows that they are "misbehaving". Or maybe B2B's 28 edits on the project page during the presence there (an average of 7 per year) is over the top. So I guess that 53 is OK, and 107 needs a big smack-down. If this isn't quickly terminated in a manner not adverse to B2B, it should be restarted in a manner that doesn't have that fatal manipulative defect. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you get 107 edits in the past 4 years; the linked statistics shows 107 edits since January 8, 2013. But the issue here is B2C's behavior, not the quantity of edits. Omnedon (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  The "107" was from the requested and provided summary, and the "4 years" was my error which I fixed (thanks for pointing that out). The complainant identified this page as the current case, all of their links regarding such were to this page, and they requested (and received) that count as evidence of their core current assertion which was domination of that page. So I was addressing the complainant's assertion/evidence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  As Omnedon said, the number of edits is not the only problem with B2C's posting (although he seems to think it is, since the only fault he admits is "posting too much"). His issues, supported above by diffs, include disrespect for other editors (which was the subject of a warning a year ago from Arbcom); refusing to acknowledge that any interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines other than his own might have any merit (the other issue on which Arbcom warned him); and "tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own". And the reason I formatted the choices as I did is that this is not a new complaint; there have been at least two previous occasions where his style was complained of and he was threatened with sanctions unless he changed it. Anyone who thinks all three of those occasions are without merit, can choose option E (as half a dozen people have), or G if they prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  So you decided ahead of time the "no action of any type" was an offered choice, but to structure it in a way that rules out the common mutually agreeable possibilities? I call that a manipulative and defective process. If this goes any further, it should be restarted without that fatal defect. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  It is up to B2C to describe possible "common mutually agreeable possibilities". He's rejected those presented by other editors, without proposing anything other than that his interpretation is correct, and should be implemented immediately, wherever suggested. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I have already offered to collaborate with anyone interested to come up with a proposal to update

  Talk:National Pension Scheme#Requested move 2., you and I have expressed differing positions with regard to the meaning of "primary" in PRIMARYTOPIC. I have addressed your reasoning, explained why I'm baffled, and explained my reasoning; you have not explained yours, except stating your opinion that I'm misreading, "as usual". And I'm the one accused of being dismissive of other's opinions? --Born2cycle (talk

  ) 19:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  North8000: Editors are free to offer whatever recommendations they choose; indeed, a number have offered their own, which is fine. Please feel free to do the same. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I know that, but that does not address the problem that I raised. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Bias against B2C? We are all biased in one way or another. Biases have an infinite variety of causes and reasons. One type of bias is bias against a particular individual. A possible source of such bias is having a history of disagreement with such a person. Such bias is natural and normal. Acting on it should be avoided.

  It has been mentioned by at least PBS ("parties to long running disagreements are trying to get people they disagree with banned"), LittleBen ("Agree with PBS"), North8000 ("This is formatted in a manipulative and defective manner"), but in case it is not clear to others how strong the bias against me is at play here, in my defense, I would like to point out that almost everyone who has supported some kind of topic ban sanction against me (A or B) has a history of disagreeing with me in the area of titles. I should also point out that not everyone with a history of disagreeing with me is supporting a topic ban or any strong sanction.

  I'm not suggesting or even thinking anyone is acting in bad faith. It's just that the bias needs to be recognized and accounted for by whoever is evaluating what is going on here. If two people have a history of disagreeing, each is likely to have at least a subconscious motivation to muzzle the other, and this AN is obviously an opportunity to muzzle me in the area that all these people have a history of disagreeing with me. We are capable of rising above the biases we all carry, but anyone with such a history with me who is advocating sanction here, especially without mentioning the history, as if he or she is an objective observer, could do better.

  Just to be clear, the following participants in this AN have a history of disagreeing with me in multiple RM and/or title discussions. I presume each would not dispute this claim about our mutual history, but I'd be happy to provide evidence upon request.

  1. SarekOfVulcan
  2. Dicklyon
  3. Black Kite
  4. Omnedon
  5. Arthur Rubin
  6. MelanieN
  7. Huwmanbeing
  8. SMcCandlish
  9. Mike Cline
  10. Jayron32
  11. Orlady
  12. Tony
  13. Ohconfucius
  14. Nyttend

Being listed here does not mean they are necessarily being unfair, but that I request the possibility of bias against me be considered in anything subjective they allege about me or my behavior. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Those who have been directly involved in discussions with you are naturally more likely to be aware of the difficulties involved in such discussions. Here's an example. Omnedon (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if the involvement with each other has been exclusively from opposites of an issue, as is the case with you, I believe, then the perception might be different than those who have been on both sides, as PBS has, and explains:

"whether B2C are on the same side of an argument or different sides, he is responsive to arguments based on policy and guidelines. His arguments are usually based on guidance and policy and his verbose mode is engaged when he is addressing arguments of the "ME TOO" type, where the persons saying "me too" are supporting a position that comes down to "I don't like it", and it I think it is not unreasonable to request that such positions are justified via policies and guidelines because of the wording of

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS

. One of the problems that we have is that closing admins too often close RfCs, AfDs and RMs by treating opinions as votes, and while that continues to be the case, interested parties that hold different POVs will continue to question the opinions of others in the way that B2C does.".

The highlighted part reflects exactly what I was doing in the example you cite above. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What you were doing was demanding a response, being dismissive, and assuming bad faith. Omnedon (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out that there were others on your side of the issue at those RfCs, but they are not being discussed at AN. I can disagree with people without it being a huge deal, and have often worked toward consensus on Wikipedia over the years; but this is not about disagreement over specific issues. This is about your aggressive pursuit of your goal and the difficulties it produces. Omnedon (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you interpret what I wrote in your quoted example as me "demanding a response, being dismissive, and assuming bad faith". If someone wrote those exact same words to me, I wouldn't interpret them that way. I certainly did not mean them that way. But I've explained this to you 2 or 3 times now, and you still insist on characterizing it this way. Are you assuming good faith on my part? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A only. The user has exhausted the community's patience, so allowing limited involvement via Option B is too much leeway. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Option B or A ~ the former only with strict limits on the quantity and style of comments the user is allowed. And, though i have read many discussions he is involved in, i have (i think) never before commented on any of them, so no bias or mutual history can be blamed. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 20:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Idea I started reading the guideline talk page until my eyes started bleeding. Born2Cycle, what do you think of this idea?: You voluntarily give this topic a rest for a year as no longer being worth it. Just a quick, pragmatic solution, not an admission of guilt, conditional on such resolving / closing this fatally mis-constructed thing here. Specifically, voluntarily stay away from the naming guideline page for a year, and not make any article moves due to place name formatting for a year. And if you go against your voluntary statement this can get reopened and you also agree that I can come trout you ten times over. Life is too short...... North8000 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying no, but obviously I don't believe WP is improved by muzzling me, regardless of who puts the muzzle on me. Titles are my area of expertise, and I have a lot to offer there, even if not everyone recognizes and appreciates that, or how my efforts are related to the RM backlog, which is now 2 1/2 months old. Wouldn't it be better if the specific behavior that people want me to avoid was documented clearly in policy (probably
    WP:DE) that applies to everyone equally? I've already said I would comply with anything that gets incorporated into policy with consensus support, and that I would help get that in there. It's about where WP governance is on the continuum between rule of man and rule of law; I hope it's closer to the latter, and what I'm suggesting will help us move even more in that direction. --Born2cycle (talk
    ) 22:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you have done anything wrong. I give up on some where I know that my basis is solid enough to eventually prevail (but doesn't in the venue) where the issue/problem isn't big enough to be worth the time to continue. I don't know this one well enough to know if "basis is solid enough" vs. being a matter of opinion/personal preference, but might it be a case of "the issue/problem isn't big enough to be worth the time to continue."? North8000 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Working on bringing stability to title space on WP is very important to me (see my user page and FAQ - it's my top priority on WP), probably much more important than it is to most others. So, for me, yes, it is big enough to be worth the time to continue, especially now when a few are trying to "loosen" the rules which would bring even more ambiguity into the process, less stability, and ever longer RM backlogs. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I will agree to the following for one year starting today (Feb 16, 2013) if that satisfies.

1. I will stay away from
   WP:PLACE
   (will make no edits).
2. At
   WT:PLACE
   , with no more than a total of five exceptions per month, I will make no more than four comments per week (less than one per day, average), not including fix/revisions to those, per discussion.
3. I will not propose any move requests of articles about US cities.
4. With no more than a total of 5 exceptions per month, I will limit my commentary on RM discussions to four comments per week, whichever comes first, not including fix/revisions to those, per discussion.

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable but complicated so you'd need to be on board in spirit as well (taking it easy) But what about actual moves of city articles...is that included? North8000 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000: It must be noted that voluntary restraint from Born2cycle (based on public promises he made to the community to desist and change his behavior) was already tried as a solution under the previous ANI – unsuccessfully. ╠╣uw [talk] 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you define success? I've complied with everything I pledged to do.

1. In the last year I commented less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved than I had before.
2. I have been more agreeable and less disagreeable.
3. When I do disagree, I try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing.
4. I have been more careful about how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted
5. I look for signs from others, to let me know how I'm doing. Haven't gotten very many of those, but have listened when I do. Even stopped comment at
   WT:PLACE
   recently because of such comments.
6. I continued to welcome, and encouraged even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. I'm often asking about this.
7. I have not thought, believed, conveyed or said that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline means there is no problem to address. For example, I've said repeatedly here that I recognize a problem exists.

I haven't been totally successful in all of these efforts, but I've done my best with everything that was in my control. Just because mostly people with histories of disagreements with me, perhaps motivated by a desire to muzzle me, claim I have not lived up to my pledge, does not mean it's true. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle: You are of course free to assert that you've complied, but at this point that's up to others to judge. It's unfortunate to have to note your frequent assertions (made both here and elsewhere) that concerns about your behavior are motivated by personal disagreements with your position, desires to muzzle you, etc. Concerns about your behavior have been long-term, repeated, and expressed by a great number of editors, which should at least suggest to you the possibility that something is amiss; however, without such recognition, my fear is that the pattern will merely continue to repeat.

As to your promises of last year, it's important to note that your compliance with their provisions was the clear condition on which you avoided a topic ban in the last ANI. Since you ask me how I judge your success in adhering to those promises, I must unfortunately but clearly answer that it was unsuccessful:

1. The inordinate volume of your posts has been noted repeatedly by many editors for months (e.g.), certainly in the forums already cited. That the forums were RfCs rather than RMs is not a technicality that should excuse such disruption.

2. On the subject of agreeability, that also must be judged by others; overt disagreeability in the form of name-calling is low (though not absent[276]), but disagreeable behavior is still continued and overt, notably in (among other things) the frequent mischaracterization of opposing views as mere "JDLI" and "status quo stonewalling", even when reasonable opposing viewpoints have been repeatedly voiced.[277]

3. This pattern isn't evident. Insistence that your own and often very lengthy points be refuted to your satisfaction in order be considered more than JDLI or stonewalling does not seem positive.[278][279]

5. You received direct and repeated feedback with concerns about your behavior for months, expressed many times in multiple RfCs by many editors; to suggest there "weren't very many of those" is extremely disingenuous, and your responses to them were not positive.[280] That we're now in a lull in the latest RfC (which occurred only after significant and lengthy disruption had already occurred) is good; however, there was also a lull in your posts to that forum following the previous RfC... but that lull didn't prevent the behavior from beginning again as soon as the next one opened.

7. That you believe a problem exists is different from saying your behavior is problematic. In fact you've repeatedly expressed your view that the concerns being voiced are motivated by disagreement with your position – a charge I consider distasteful and which doesn't suggest a recognition on your part that the problem truly lies in your behavior.

In short, though I'd like to believe that things have changed, that's simply not backed up by what I see. Given that previous promises of reform haven't been successful in curbing the disruption being noted by many editors, I must still join with the sizable majority of respondents here in supporting some form of imposed topic ban (preferably A). ╠╣uw [talk] 13:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Option A but if that lacks consensus I would be reluctantly forced to support Option B. In a previous attempt at improving, B2C made what I viewed as a positive and constructive comment showing openness for change. However when a discussion came up to test that statement, it was left in the dust. In rereading it, I saw that it was built on words like, as I recall, might and probably. So what I took in
  good faith! That along with the conditions of a voluntary ban. Those conditions suggested are going to be difficult to enforce and is overly complex tell me that maybe B2C does not comprehend the perception that other editors have. There have been points made that maybe we should not act as a community based on the reason that this discussion was started. However true that may be, it started the community discussion on the totality of interactions and if that is the case, so discussing a ban based on a long history is fair. Vegaswikian (talk
  ) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about voluntary agreement

North8000, I believe you have proposed a formula that could resolve this situation: a voluntary agreement, with nothing imposed on anyone by anyone, no fault assigned or admitted, and recognizing that B2C believes his lengthy posts to be productive discussion and doesn't understand why anyone regards them as problematic. This discussion could then be closed as resolved, with the option of referring back to it later if the agreement was not kept. However, what you have specifically proposed - no edits at the naming guideline page and no placename moves - seems both unnecessarily harsh (titles are B2C's passion, and he does have expertise to share) and unlikely to solve the real problem; RM discussions and policy talk page discussions are the source of most of the complaints above. What B2C has proposed above might work, but it seems needlessly complicated (so much so that B2C himself would have to keep a scorecard, and it would be almost impossible for anyone else to follow), and it may not entirely address the problem. I would prefer something like option 2 B above: that on RMs and policy talk pages B2C would post his opinion and rationale, ONCE, as clearly and concisely as he could (without cut-and-pasting his FAQ page or trying to anticipate all counterarguments). He could also reply to comments and questions directed specifically to him. But he would not comment on the opinions expressed by others, neither to challenge or question them, nor to agree with and expand upon them. He would not describe anyone's opinion as JDLI or filibustering or silly. He would simply rely on the power of his opinion and rationale, standing alone and not lost in thousands of words of verbiage, to carry its weight in the discussion. I think this would give INCREASED rather than decreased weight to his opinion. This would be much simpler to keep track of and enforce than the complex formula he proposes, and it would deal directly with the fact that his discussions/arguments with other users are the cause of the complaints against him. If B2C would agree to and abide by something like this, I would voluntarily submit myself to the same restrictions: at RMs and title-related policy discussions I would state my opinion once, and not say anything further except to reply to comments made directly to me. I truly believe that a discussion like this would be vastly improved: clearer and easier to follow, with increased participation. --MelanieN (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN. Just to clarify. I think that the text in your post fully describes your idea, but you also mentioned option #2. I didn't see anything that was clearly option #2,if that is a part of your idea, could you clarify? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that this would be a voluntary version of Option B. Thanks for catching it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, so your post is a more detailed & specific and voluntary of option B. To recap (adding "title-related" for clarity and "1 year" (what do you think?) this is:

For one year, on RMs and title-related policy talk pages B2C would post his opinion and rationale, ONCE, as clearly and concisely as he could (without cut-and-pasting his FAQ page or trying to anticipate all counterarguments). He could also reply to comments and questions directed specifically to him. But he would not comment on the opinions expressed by others, neither to challenge or question them, nor to agree with and expand upon them. He would not describe anyone's opinion as JDLI or filibustering or silly. He would simply rely on the power of his opinion and rationale, standing alone and not lost in thousands of words of verbiage, to carry its weight in the discussion. I think this would give INCREASED rather than decreased weight to his opinion. This would deal directly with the fact that his discussions/arguments with other users are the cause of the complaints against him. If B2C would agree to and abide by something like this, I (MelanieN) would voluntarily submit myself to the same restrictions: at RMs and title-related policy discussions I would state my opinion once, and not say anything further except to reply to comments made directly to me. I truly believe that a discussion like this would be vastly improved: clearer and easier to follow, with increased participation.

North8000 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. Yes, that's a very clear statement of the proposal. I don't know whether B2C will accept it but I would urge him to - and if he does, I would urge those who chose option A or B above to accept this voluntary agreement (which unlike previous promises and warnings is very specific and measurable). I honestly believe B2C would find that a less-is-more approach to posting would make his opinions carry MORE weight in these discussions. His arguments and policy citations would stand out more clearly, rather than being buried in a mass of verbiage. If he (and I, and possibly others) were to follow the approach of "speak my piece once and walk away", it would free him and the rest of us for more productive work, such as adding content or reducing the RM backlog. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, what do you think of this? North8000 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Endorse this as worth trying, assuming B2C agrees. I certainly don't want to see B2C muzzled. However, B2C needs to learn to make clear and concise comments that would still allow for other editors meaningful participation. Bearing in mind the evidence I posted below showing weight of edits to the talk page in question, I would suggest a firm, self-policed word limit to his contributions. I don't believe he is the only one with those opinions, but he is crowding out all other opinions, including those of others who may agree with him. Failing that, I would see no alternative to either option A or B as originally proposed. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

MelanieN: It's certainly good to work to reach a satisfactory resolution here. While in other circumstances I'd also very likely favor some form of voluntary resolution, I'm afraid I don't feel it's the preferable course here, given that a similar approach was already tried unsuccessfully in the last ANI. Then (as now) it was suggested that Born2cycle could himself change the nature and verbosity of his contributions without the necessity of a formal topic ban – embracing that was a positive and good-faith effort on the part of the community, and giving him the opportunity to fulfill his pledges on his own recognizance was definitely the right thing to do.

However, that the disruptive pattern continues a year later to be felt and recognized by many editors, despite previous pledges and promises, suggests that lasting change may be unlikely to come from such measures. Let me make clear that I don't intend that as slight against B2C; in many respects he's a very fine editor who clearly cares about the encyclopedia and will hopefully continue to contribute to its further improvement and growth – but history shows that in this one particular area (titling and disambiguation) he's found it difficult to refrain from returning to the behavior described in this ANI, despite what I'm certain were perfectly honest pledges on his part. Whereas the proposal above is IMHO somewhat complex, a topic ban is simple and clear.

That said, I'm willing to consider softening my choice of option A by having the ban be revisited/reconsidered at some set point in the future, though of course the choice of action is obviously up to the community and the relevant involved administrators. It might serve as a middle ground between the more widely-separated positions of permanent topic banning and voluntary self-improvement. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Specificity of voluntary changes makes them much more likely to happen, and vica versa. It also provides an objective indicator of whether or not it has been followed. So IMHO the previous one (and/or perceptions of such) is not an indicator.North8000 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C, what do you think of this? North8000 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, North. I'm generally not supportive of the community applying any special user-specific rules to anyone. This leads to the mob mentality and community (mis)treatment of editors which PBS and others have cautioned us about.

In all cases, I'd much rather see the behavioral problems addressed through updating/clarifying the relevant rules that apply to everyone equally, and then holding the editor in question to abide by them.

I, for one, don't want to see anyone limited to making just one comment in any discussion. To the contrary, encouraging people to leave one comment and not participating beyond that is not even a discussion. A discussion implies back-and-forth commenting among participants that brings clarity to the underlying issues. In my view, we need to be encourage more, not less, of that, which is of course the theme of the maligned

WP:Stonewalling essay.

If what we say in discussions is not subject to scrutiny by others (including me), we are encouraging what PBS characterizes as "arguments of the 'ME TOO' type, where the persons saying 'me too' are supporting a position that comes down to 'I don't like it'". I also agree with PBS that "it is not unreasonable to request that such positions are justified via policies and guidelines because of the wording of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS...". Otherwise, we end up "treating opinions as votes", and that leads to random inconsistent decisions made largely on whim rather than predictable consistent decisions based on policy and guidelines.

I don't believe we're improving WP by characterizing the questioning of the substance of what others say with pejorative terms like "domineering", "tendentious", and "excessively verbose". If people unwilling or unable to clearly explain the basis for their positions in policy and guidelines are discouraged from participating by those of us who put their feet to the fire, so to speak, is that harmful or helpful to WP? I don't know that consensus is clear on the answer to this question, which is key to evaluating my behavior. If it is made clear that the consensus is that such behavior is harmful, than I will not engage in it, of course. But given the high number of people besides me who engage in it, I find it unlikely for that to be the case.

It's really easy to support sanctions that affect only one individual. It's much harder to be fair and support a change to the rules to which everyone must abide by, but I suggest WP is improved if we make the effort to do the latter. --Born2cycle (talk

) 18:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw MelanieN's efforts as being in the spirit of getting you to voluntarily dial it back a little, and an effort to give it some specificity to make it more likely to actually happen. Probably something in the same spirit of what you proposed except with less complexity. Maybe your proposal more accurately defines dialing it back a little, but it is really complicated. Maybe if you make sure you follow it and everyone else sees that there has been a net result, that's enough. (?) North8000 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone is "on probation" for clearly violating policy or guideline, I don't think anyone should be put in a situation where they are open to being sanctioned for engaging in behavior that is normally not sanctioned. That's why I keep saying we need to be clear on exactly what the behavior is that we want to discourage. I'm basically accused of two things: 1) quantity of comments, and 2) content of comments being inappropriate (for lack of a better term). I think I have strong defense against both accusations. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but, if there is, then the relevant rules need to be clarified. I mean, we're all clear that personal attacks are, well, violations of

Talk:National_Pension_Scheme#Requested_move_2 has ended too, now that the dominant proponents of that proposal have stopped posting. It's a bit much to blame me or anyone else for ongoing discussions that necessarily involve more than one person apparently interested in discussing the issues further. --Born2cycle (talk

) 17:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading that page made my eyes bleed. Regarding overall participation there, it looks like a "3 vs. 1" debate which sorts of leads to the "1" writing more unless they give up. BTW, when a debate gets that huge and detailed, and conversations start presuming knowledge of the preceding 200,000 words, it sets up a "barrier of entry" for new participants. My ideas were not meant to imply misbehavior, they were just a sort of "maybe this isn't worth your trouble" or "maybe this debate over what (at first blush) appears to be a mater of style" has gotten too big compared to what little is at stake and it's time to do yourself a favor and give up on it for a year" also as a pragmatic end to this thread here. Or maybe "life's too short, there isn't that much at stake here, kick back and have some fun instead" is good advice for all concerned. Sort of like an informal version of MelanieN's plan applied to all of the main folks there. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Central issue? Is "arguing a point to death" necessarily wrong? Above, RegentsPark wrote, "There is nothing wrong with arguing a point to death if you're not the only one holding a view... ". I generally agree with that, understood that "not the only one" means "a sufficient number compared to all involved to establish there is 'no consensus' on the issue". So if it's only 4-6 people, as long as at least one of those others agrees with you, there's nothing wrong with "arguing a point to death". But if it's a larger number involved, you really need a few more on your side, otherwise the other side has consensus. Sometimes this is the only way to reach consensus, and, yes, it can take years. I note that at the current RfC at

WP:PLACE, the survey shows 12 out of 30 are in support. That's not a majority nor a consensus, but it's enough to establish that opposing the proposal is also not a consensus view. All previous RfC's on this issue had similar results. It's a fallacy to claim there is consensus when there is this much opposition. As HaguenErik says, "USPLACE is controversial". So "arguing a point to death" there should be okay, no?

Now contrast RegentsPark's view with that of Arthur Rubin, for example, who wrote: "The fact that he continues making the same arguments repeatedly in both (active) RfCs doesn't help matters much, either". Now, I disagree that I continue making the same arguments repeatedly, but that aside, this statement clearly suggests that it's not okay to keep arguing a point to death, even if you're not the only one.

Which is it, why, and which policies/guidelines support your view?

It seems to me that we all agree that when there is consensus on an issue, arguing a point to death is disruptive. As I said earlier, that's why I stopped arguing in favor of using parentheses for US city disambiguation long ago - consensus is clearly against that idea. But what people like Arthur seem to want to do is make "arguing a point to death" (using RegentsPark's words) even when there is no consensus on the issue in question to be recognized as disruptive editing. I don't think there is consensus on that point, it's certainly not stated anywhere clearly in writing, and I strongly object to being sanctioned as if it is. --Born2cycle (talk

) 00:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We have national holidays for people who refused to give up on something when they were initially outnumbered. So IMHO there is nothing wrong with doing so. But this one might be just a matter of preference/style and not worth the trouble. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the bigger issue here is whether it's okay to sanction someone, or threaten to sanction someone, based only on a

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS concerning a subjective judgement about whether the behavior was disruptive (and disagreed with not only by the accused, but significant numbers of other experienced editors), and when the bulk of the local consensus is comprised of people with a history of disagreement with that someone. I hope we can all agree that that is not okay, and that it's important to get that established. --Born2cycle (talk

) 00:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you and agree that is a big problem in Wikipedia. Basically, in Wikipedia, its too easy for any skilled gang to use the system to get their opponent beat up. And the manipulative framework that has been established and followed here certainly puts me on red alert of this being that. But I'm also guessing that if I were involved on this I might have been asking you to give it up, being outnumbered on something that would be sort of OK either way. So my idea is a finding of "you did nothing wrong" combined with saving yourself some grief by voluntarily staying away from this for a year per the details I described. North8000 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Top 10 for the last 3 years and a bit:

2010		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Born2cycle	89		76811	14.0%
2	Pmanderson	108		50421	9.2%
3	MRSC	55		37701	6.9%
4	Kotniski	74		33338	6.1%
5	Jayjg	72		31958	5.8%
6	Jamesinderbyshire	40		31436	5.7%
7	Mhockey	37		29091	5.3%
8	Mattinbgn	29		23143	4.2%
9	Skinsmoke	21		22898	4.2%
10	BritishWatcher	31		14475	2.6%
				549526	100.0%
2011		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Doncram	41		117263	14.6%
2	Born2cycle	93		83126	10.3%
3	Dohn joe	58		39268	4.9%
4	Bogdan Nagachop	71		35516	4.4%
5	Ezhiki	25		35051	4.4%
6	Volunteer Marek	45		33788	4.2%
7	Pmanderson	63		26982	3.4%
8	Kotniski	26		18169	2.3%
9	Bkonrad	33		18059	2.2%
10	Huwmanbeing	22		17419	2.2%
				803734	100.0%
2012		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Born2cycle	180		138350	32.4%
2	MelanieN	127		49921	11.7%
3	Huwmanbeing	36		29821	7.0%
4	Dicklyon	36		17672	4.1%
5	Mike Cline	15		13516	3.2%
6	Nick Thorne	18		12497	2.9%
7	Omnedon	38		11683	2.7%
8	Kauffner	29		10921	2.6%
9	TheCatalyst31	6		10168	2.4%
10	Doncram	14		8093	1.9%
		763		427120	100.0%
2013		no. edits		Bytes	by bytes
1	Born2cycle	107		85284	34.6%
2	Huwmanbeing	39		39662	16.1%
3	Omnedon	57		27506	11.2%
4	MelanieN	53		20697	8.4%
5	Noetica	7		9971	4.0%
6	Lester Foster	3		8115	3.3%
7	Agnosticaphid	10		5207	2.1%
8	Jayron32	9		4925	2.0%
9	Nick Thorne	5		4718	1.9%
10	Kauffner	14		4418	1.8%
		375		246213	100.0%

Can you agree at least that you may be overbearing and excessively verbose in your talk page participation, and that you really need to make a conscious effort to stop being so dismissive of others' opinions; you could also be a lot less domineering, and allow everybody a say, no? -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I absolutely deny that I'm "dismissive" of anyone's opinion, ever. I give careful consideration to what others say, and respond in detail. That's the opposite of being dismissive, and goes a long way to explain why I'm relatively verbose. To disagree is not to dismiss. I'm not dismissing what you're saying here, for example, I'm disagreeing with it. I certainly recognize that the amount I respond is perceived by some to be "overbearing", particularly by those who disagree with me. But that does not mean I am actually domineering.

As to allowing everybody a say, I have no idea how how much one person posts can affect the ability of anyone else having whatever say they want. On-line written discussions are not at all like in-person discussions which are limited by time and the fact that only one person can be speaking at a given time. The latter can of course be domineered by overbearing behavior, but I don't see how the former can be, including WP talk page discussions. Most of these discussions are segmented (like this one is) such that someone can "catch up" and respond reasonably with a section by reading only that section. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not dismissive, ever? What would you say to these statements of your from the December RfC at

WT:PLACE: "I just reviewed all your comments on this page. I had read them all before, and they are all mostly expressions of jdli opinion." "Get it? Does anyone have a real objection to E that is not simply JDLI or based on a misunderstanding? Anything?" "Expressing a JDLI opinion is not addressing anything. It is WP:Stonewalling to retain the status quo." "If you think there was a valid point you made that I characterized and dismissed as being JDLI/stonewalling, please identify it." This is dismissive. You can say that any argument is JDLI or stonewalling, and then dismiss it, insisting on "something else". Omnedon (talk

) 20:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

North has made the wisest comment in this thread so far - "We have national holidays for people who refused to give up on something when they were initially outnumbered." HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Omnedon, not dismissive, ever.

Of course any argument can be said to be JDLI or stonewalling, but not any argument can be shown to be so. But if the argument is clearly based on policy/guidelines, saying it is JDLI is absurd and reflects badly on the person saying it.

When we make decisions, we are supposed to weigh the various arguments presented based on how well they follow policy and guidelines. Of course we give some arguments more weight and others less, based on that. And a pure JDLI argument should be given very little weight; maybe zero weight. Is that dismissing the argument? Maybe it's semantics, but to me "dismissing" suggests not even giving an argument due consideration, while evaluating an argument and giving it little or no weight due to lack of basis in policy/guidelines is just normal argument evaluation. It's not dismissing. But if you insist on characterizing finding arguments that are given due consideration and found to be devoid of basis in policy and guidelines to be dismissive, okay, I do that. But don't you think we need more of such "dismissive" argument evaluation on WP, rather than less? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

B2C: Consistently labeling reasonable views contrary to your own as mere JDLI stonewalling is indeed dismissive. I understand you feel that all opposing views are mere JDLI stonewalling (and thus have "zero weight") but please understand that that's not an assessment shared by most other editors, and isn't supported by the many lengthy discussions where reasonable points both pro and con have been clearly enumerated and explored (e.g.). ╠╣uw [talk] 01:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Consistently labeling reasonable views contrary to your own as mere JDLI stonewalling is indeed dismissive". I deny that I do that. Nor do I feel (what do you know about what I feel anyway?) that all (or anything close to "all") opposing views are mere JDLI stonewalling. I suggest you really have to cherry pick through my commentary history to even begin to support such a conclusion. The vast, vast majority of my commentary is not comprised of my assessing the views of others in this way. This hyperbole is not at all helpful, except to reveal how extreme your bias against me is. Sad. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I speak only for the cited forums, which are linked for others to view in their entirety. Also, please note that I don't suggest every post is an assertion of JDLI; my point is simply that (as others point out) broad dismissal of reasonable opposing views as JDLI and stonewalling is the pattern. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone should close this

Doesn't seem to be much point left in this thread - just a bunch of extended comments on who said what and when and we're not really in the thesis writing business here, are we? Looks like Beeblebrox (here) was right. Perhaps an uninvolved admin should look at the various opinions above and decide what, if anything, needs to be done. --regentspark (comment) 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right. Thank you for trying, North8000. You gave it your best shot, and I can tell you have a real talent for mediation. But in his reply, B2C displayed once again the problems that have brought him before the community three separate times now: the refusal to acknowledge the problem (he isn't being "domineering", he is just "holding people's feet to the fire" to get them to "clearly explain the basis for their positions in policy and guidelines"); the wikilawyering (where EXACTLY does it say that it's dismissive to describe all opinions other than your own as "silly"?); and above all the

complete inability to hear what people are saying to him

, including in this very thread. I'll sum up the responses for him here, and then I think there's nothing more to say.

Admins:

• B, A Sarek of Vulcan
• A, B Nyttend
• A, B Peridon
• B Mike Cline
• B, A Arthur Rubin
• B,A Jayron32
• D,B regentspark
• B,A Black Kite
• G Ezhiki
• E HaugenErik
• A,B Jonathunder
• E PBS
• E 28bytes
• B,A Orlady
• A Vegaswikian

Non-admins:

• A, B Beyond my Ken
• A Huwmanbeing
• A Calton
• A Dicklyon
• B,A voluntary SmokeyJoe
• A Omnedon
• E RaiMe
• E LittleBen
• A Tony1
• B Ohconfucius
• A Binksternet
• B,A Lindsay

I said at the outset that I would respect the community's consensus with regard to this editor, and I mean it. But I kind of pity whoever tries to close this discussion! --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "E," consensus is not voting, and, if you're going to go all

Appeal to authority 28bytes is not just an admin, they're a bureucrat, and Sarek and Black Kite are admins. NE Ent

22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections; I have adjusted my list accordingly. I interpreted your comment "Oppose sanction or restriction" as being equivalent to Option E, but I didn't mean to put words in your mouth so I'll strike you from the list. And yes, I realize this kind of discussion is not settled by vote-counting. My intention in posting this information was to try one last time to deal with the

WP:IDHT problem - to try to get B2C to actually notice how many people are trying to tell him something. --MelanieN (talk

) 23:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you consider your comments in this section of those of a disinterested party, or are you still acting as prosecutor and tying to influence the outcome to that which you desire? -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@PBS: The concept that an editor with a complaint about another editor has to come here acting like a "disinterested party" is contradicted by practically every AN and AN/I report that's ever been filed. It's really a rather bizarre concept, and I don't see where it came from. People come here and AN/I because there is, in their view, a problem that needs to be solved. To insist that they be required to maintain neutrality in that situation (at the pain of being dubbed a "prosecutor") is not conducive to solving the problem, it simply adds an extra, irrelevant layer to it, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted above? If not please do, as to understand my first posting to this section, you need to have read it. RegentsPark initiated this subsection "Someone should close this" with a neutral observation. For either the initiator of the process or the defendant to comment in this section was inappropriate for two reasons. I think that by commenting here MelanieN has contradicted RP's observation at the start of the section as MelanieN clearly thought that not everything had been said; and I think that MelanieN's comment was classic Parthian shot (a summation to jury) which in fact begs retort of a similar nature from the defendant, and so perpetuates a debate that RegentsPark was suggesting has come to an end. Beyond My Ken just before you posted (and positioned below this posting) MelanieN wrote "The record is what it is; my summary is neutral." Do you think MelanieN's first summary was neutral? What about MelanieN's reply to NE Ent posting which includes "My intention in posting this information was to try one last time to deal with the WP:IDHT problem ..."? -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Struck out as posted after the close due to an edit clash.

I certainly do not pretend to be a "disinterested party". The record is what it is; my summary is neutral. The purpose of my comments here is to indicate that I am giving up on the attempt to reach an agreed-upon settlement; B2C's response above pretty much ruled that out. So unless B2C looks at this summary and finally realizes how many people think he has a problem, I agree with regentspark that there is nothing more to say here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have never denied that there are substantial numbers of people who believe there is a problem. The difficulty is in characterizing exactly what the problem is, and what to do about it, fairly. I don't think topic-banning me or limiting me to one post per discussion is fair or reasonable, and is actually missing the point. I expound on this in my latest comment at #Discussion about voluntary agreement, so I won't repeat that here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've unfortunately commented above so I can't close this. But, the discussion above does clearly bring out a couple of things. First, b2c does have the tendency to go on at length and needs to figure out how to rein himself when the discussion isn't going his way. It is useful to recognize that we are all volunteers and don't necessarily have the patience to read beyond the first 100 words. But, that's really a symptom of what appears to be the disease - that it is not clear whether or not

WP:USPLACE is fully supported by consensus. That's the heart of the problem and it seems to me that along with a formal "control yourself" injunction to born2cycle, a suggestion that we revisit the need for USPLACE is not a bad idea. --regentspark (comment

) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I must emphatically disagree with your statement that the WP:USPLACE situation is the heart of the problem. Rather, that is one of many discussions in which this behavior on the part of B2C seems (to some of us) to be problematic. The WP:USPLACE situation has had two RfCs in the last few months with a huge amount of discussion. Revisiting it a third time does not address this situation. Omnedon (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just reading what's up here and, admittedly, I don't know the history. Perhaps it merely needs reassertion but, based on the discussion above and the disagreement with what to do with b2c, there does appear to be some disagreement over USPLACE.--regentspark (comment) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As I explained above (and I certainly don't expect everyone to have read everything in this thread), I did NOT post this just because of USPLACE. That is the main area where I have encountered B2C, but he participates in many other discussions involving titles, and he displays the same problems (dominating the thread just not by length but by attitude, dismissing and belittling other people's opinions, making the same point over and over, etc.). I had actually dropped the idea of filing a complaint, after he took somebody's advice to "take a breather" from the USPLACE thread. But a week or two later when I saw a note on his talk page, complaining about his behavior in a completely unrelated thread, I realized the problem with his style was bigger than USPLACE and decided it should be brought to the community's attention. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And as for revisiting USPLACE: That convention was discussed thoroughly in November, and again in January-February. The reason I tried (unsuccessfully) to shut down the second discussion was that we had just discussed it, only six weeks earlier. I thought there ought to be some kind of grace period, some decent interval after a discussion before we have to discuss it again. I would apply the same argument here: don't make us go through that again so soon! Let a little time pass. I'm sure it will come up again eventually. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

When the RFC was opened by TBrandley the first editor to respond was MelanieN, with the claim "the situation with U.S. cities is pretty well settled and I doubt if anyone wants to see it reopened so soon.", a claim belied by the many subsequent support votes; when John K supported the idea the response was a not very civil "Oh brother" and personalization of the issue with "nobody EXCEPT BORN2CYCLE wants to see it reopened so soon. " (Does this mean MelanieN thinks TBrandley is a sock or meatpuppet of B2C?) Data is produced above uses percentage of bytes for unexplained reasons -- if we use the 2012 numbers by percentage of edits we get

Born2cycle 	180	36%
MelanieN 	127	25%
Omnedon 	38	8%
Huwmanbeing 	36	7%
Dicklyon 	36	7%
Kauffner 	29	6%
Nick Thorne 	18	4%
Mike Cline 	15	3%
Doncram 	14	3%
TheCatalyst31 	6	1%

so somehow we're supposed to conclude that 36% is too much and 25% is okay? motes and beams come to mind. NE Ent 23:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the figures indicate that if MelanieN wants a voluntary agreement for B2C then she should be prepared to commit to the same voluntary agreement for herself. LittleBen (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that was exactly what I proposed. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, percentage of bytes seems a reasonable measure, as well as percentage of edits, especially since B2C has been known to present the same

WP:USPLACE guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

23:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your figures and mine both put B2C at the top of the stats. The figures, and the tenacity continually demonstrated by B2C indicate to me that he insists on having the last word. In the online environment, it would be impossible for him to stop if there was anyone else left for him to tango with. He said so much himself when he said others (perhaps meaning Melanie or Huw, but I'm sure it more generally means anyone who takes issue with him) should shut up first – a comment I found really quite symptomatic of the whole problem. For the record, I'd once again state my preference for option B, but I would reluctantly support option A if that is the only way to put an end to the noise. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 15:46, 20 February 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.

Proposal for a community ban of User:Bull-Doser

There is no consensus from the community to ban

standard offer, this proposal can be revisited then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

10:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I am making a formal proposal to ban from the community User:Bull-Doser, a longtime persistent disruptive editor since early 2006. I have first met Bull-Doser in 2007 and while I always found his edits questionnable, I would just just correct them and assume good faith. It's only in 2011 that I have decided to take actions against Bull-Doser after reading his talk page and researching his history on Wikipedia.

History

Bull-Doser joined Wikipedia in December 2005 under the account

User:Take Me Higher. From the start, the account was plagued with complaints from members of WikiProject Automobiles regarding the poor quality of his car pictures. Bull-Doser rejected all discussion regarding the quality of images. In April 2006, members of WikiProject Automobiles opened a Request for Comments report in desperation to get Bull-Doser to respond about the problems of images.[281]. Bull-Doser ignored the Rfc case and continued uploading bad images not meeting quality standards. In June 2006, Bull-Doser briefly lost the password of his Take Me Higher account and created the Bull-Doser account. Members of WikiProject expressed concerns about Bull-Doser using two seperate accounts as well as the persistent problem regarding his images. Bull-Doser provided the reason why he created a second account but, as usual, avoided discussing about his images. [282] After being told that sockpuppetry is not permitted on Wikipedia, Bull-Doser chose to edit solely with the Bull-Doser account and discontinued the Take Me Higher account. In December 2006, Bull-Doser was reported to the Administrators Noticeboard for gratuitously throwing the F-word at another editor over a silly reason.[283] Bull-Doser made a mild apology and as such was able to get away with this personal attack. [284]

In 2007, Bull-Doser expanded his editing outside car articles. As a result, his disruption expanded to new areas including original research and unsourced content. As with the problem with his images, Bull-Doser ignored the notice/warnings about these new problems. And for the rare times that he did responded, he would talk about something else instead of addressing the problematic issues. Starting in 2008, a new type of disruption surfaced with Bull-Doser's images. Bull-Doser would spam his car images in articles that have nothing to do with cars and by including captions endossing the car's manufacturers. [285] [286] [287] [288][289] For this specific issue, I don't recall Bull-Doser being called on this on his talk page . However, editors who reverted his irrelevant car pictures did provided edit summaries explaining why these edits had to be reverted. [290] [291][292] But as with the rest of disruptive edits, Bull-Doser ignored the explanations and continued inserting car pictures on non-car articles all while endorsing the car manufacturer in caption.

2011 Block

Seeing how the abuse had been going on for years with absolutely no progress, I successfully requested a 24 hour block in December 2011 after Bull-Doser continued inserting original research content following two recent Level 4 warnings (by two different editors). Since returning from his block, Bull-Doser resumed his various disruptive edits with no improvement at all. It's like the 24 hour block had never happened.

2012 ANI case and indefinite block

Tired of going round in circles, I opened an ANI case in October 2012 after Bull-Doser disregarded a final warning regarding original research. With the exception of a brief answer (which didn't even address the problematic issue), Bull-Doser systematically deserted the whole ANI discussion. The closing administrator took upon himself to ban Bull-Doser. Since the community was never consulted for such action, the ANI case was reopened and Bull-Doser's ban was tuned into an indefinite block

More disruption while blocked

Although Bull-Doser has been blocked since October 2012, the disruption has continued . Since his 10/28/12 block, Bull-Doser has attempted block evasion through four different colorful ways ; the first time by editing with his IP adress outright [293], the second time by attempting to use his old Take Me Higher account [294]; the third time by asking editors to edit a radio station article for him [295] and the fourth time by telling editors on Wikimedia Commons to insert one of his images on Wikipedia. [296]

Bull-Doser has a Wikimedia Commons account that was created around the same time as the "Bull-Doser" account on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia account is plagued with poor quality images. Since his 28/10/12 block on Wikipedia, over 20 of Bull-Doser's images on Wikimedia Commons have been deleted or are in the process of being deleted; all of them because of quality issues. [297] At least 15 of these images were uploaded when Bull-Doser was already blocked on Wikipedia. Not all of Bull-Doser's images are necessarily bad. But a very high percentage of his images are. As recently as February 11, 2013, Bull-Doser uploaded two images of an Acura MDX of remarkable poor quality. Like many of Bull-Doser poor quality images, these two pictures have now been deleted.

However, I found these two pictures uploaded in December 2012 that have yet to be deleted [298][299] There is absolutely no excuse for an editor who has been on Wikipedia for this long to upload images of this sort of quality. None of this would be happening if Bull-Doser had listened to what people were telling him about his images 7 years ago. An editor on Wikimedia Commons has even express interest to have Bull-Doser blocked on this project as well. [300]

Why I believe Bull-Doser meet the requirements of a ban

Let's have a look at what the banning policy says.

• If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia

Bull-Doser violations include original research, image quality issues, unsourced content, image spamming, block evasion, refusal to communicate with other editors about his problematic edits and lack of comprehension. With the exception of block evasion, all of these problems have persisted for years with no improvement.

• Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.

Bull-Doser has caused a lot of frustration to many editors over the years and this statement can be confirmed by the talkpage of both the "Bull-Doser" and "Take Me Higher" accounts as well as some other complementary pages (Wikmedia, RFC, other user's talkpages, etc). The problem with Bull-Doser is that, not only he consistently disrupt Wikipedia, but also he does not respond to the concerns about his edits. So you feel kind of trapped because you don't know what to do. His presence causes an unnecessary burden to other editors who have to revert/correct his edits knowing that things will never change. Also, it fall within "persistent problems" since the disruption has been going on for 7 years.

• The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

Bull-Doser's lack of understanding about the situation coupled with his lack of response to other people concerns about his edits insures that the disruption would continue if he was unblocked. You don't have to take my words for it; the proof is already there. For all the talk Bull-Doser made on top his talkpage that he would no longer do original research on Wikipedia, he still went on and inserted original research when he evaded his block with his IP address . [301] This edit summary that Bull-Doser left on Wikimedia Commons on December 10, 2012 proves that Bull_Doser lacks

WP:CLUE

and cannot differentiate a good quality image from a bad quality one. Can somebody please tell me how it is important to 1) insert a poor quality blurry image on Wikipedia? and 2) insert a car picture on a article that doesn't even discuss about cars in the first place?

To conclude

At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not for everybody. Very few of Bull-Doser's edits can be considered helpful. Even his supposedly "constructive" edits are more often than not a series of triviality that violates

WP:N

. And you don't need to look far to see where the problem. Just look at the content of his talkpage since his 10/28/12 block. His edits speak for themselves. People are telling things to Bull_Doser and he doesn't even understands what's going on. I'm aware that Bull-Doser is currently under WP:OFFER until March 10, 2013. But I feel this is all futile at this point because Bull-Doser's everlasting image problem on Wikimedia Commons coupled with his lack of clueness regarding the whole situation won't allow him to get unblocked after March 10. Over the years, Bull-Doser has been giving countless of chances to amend his behavior. He has not made use of these chances and his presence does not constitute a net positive for to project. Now blocked, Bull-Doser continues to have disruptive behaviors on his talkpage and on Wikimedia Commons that only further reduce his credibility.

I have been a registered editor on Wikipedia for 7 years and and never before have I had to make a proposal to have a user banned. I don't even edit Wikipedia much these days. So if I'm taking the time to make this proposal, it's because I know that all means have been exhausted and there isn't anything else that can't with this user at this point.

In 2007, an editor questioned if Wikipedia was hobby for Bull-Doser [302] 6 years later, I can genuinely access that Wikipedia is not a hobby for Bull-Doser. He is not capable of providing the edits that Wikipedia needs, his disruptive problems are too widespread and he is unable to understand the concerns people have about his edits. So the right thing for Bul-Doser to do is to leave Wikipedia and to pursue other activities. From what I've read on Bull-Doser's user page, he doesn't seem to be someone in lack of hobbies. So he'll be okay without Wikipedia. Sure, the first weeks will probably difficult but he'll get over it. This is the only solution that I find to be in the best interest for Wikipedia and the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farine (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Having had a quick look through this, my thoughts are simply :

1. A quick glance at his contributions reveals Bull-Doser is indeffed, and has no accepted unblock requests on his talk page. Therefore, if you can supply good evidence he's socking to avoid the indef, go to
   WP:SPI
   and post it.
2. A number of people are concerned about you getting a bit too involved with trying to throw Bull-Doser out of the door. In particular, accusations of Dennis Brown being on Bull-Doser's side are rather hollow. Dennis has a reputation for being a fair admin who looks at both sides of the argument and tries to get people to help themselves rather than bring out the banhammer. I appreciate your patience is frayed, but if he keeps disrupting, follow the normal channels, as after a post-indef restart, lapses into disruption carry more severe penalties. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Dennis Brown is on Bull-Doser's side or not. It doesn't matter, that's not the point. All I know is that he blasted me when he's the one who misspelled Bull-Doser's name. If he had spelled Bull-Doser's name correctly, he would have accessed the SPI report from the beginning and this mini drama wouldn't have happened in the first place. Horologium is biased. Horologium was opposed to Bull-Doser's blocking from the beginning. He criticized Coffee for blocking Bull-Doser by claiming there was no consensus to block him when the ANI discussion clearly indicated that the vast majority wanted an indefinite block. As for throwing Bull-Doser out the door, all I would say is that this user has angered other editors for a very long time. He violated Wikipedia

WP:CO's fundamental principle by ignoring the messages other users left on his talkpage about his edits. His edits on his talkpage and on Wikimedia Commons shows no sign of him wanting to communicate with other editors. The only time he communicates with others is when people are posting comments that opposes his unblock. So at this point, someone who has been giving this many chances for that years to work with others but failed to profit from these chances, has frustrated editors for this long and continue to demonstrate, while blocked, that he can't behave is a good reason to be banned from the community. People have been CBAN for less than this. Farine (talk

) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, people who are community banned are those who get blocked again and again, and each time either sit the block out or say that they know what they did wrong and will stop. It's the community's equivalent of crying wolf too often, which is why it takes a lot of support for it to go through. In this case, from your own description of Bull-Doser's character, it frankly doesn't seem very likely he's going to write a convincing unblock request in the near future, so in effect you're worrying about a problem that doesn't actually exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

so in effect you're worrying about a problem that doesn't actually exist. There is s great risk because an uninvolved administrator may decide to go ahead and unilaterally unblock Bull-Doser without a knowledge of this user's history, which could cause great harm to Wikipedia. By being banned, it insures that Bull-Doser cannot be back on Wikipedia without a strong consent of the community. Farine (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

An unblocking admin will have to look at least at the most recent block message and declines. There's no reasonable way they can fail to be aware of the history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Farine, none of us here are deliberately badgering your proposal here nor are we lining up to oppose/support. It's more of a "is this really necessary?" discussion. Any admin worth his salt (and mop) who deals with unblocks regularly isn't exactly going to just unilaterally overturn an indef of this sort without at least a glance at the talk page history for a start. I'd have to agree with Ritchie that there really isn't any substantial risk to the project. However, if you can pull some evidence of recent socking, etc, I for one would be more than happy to reassess my stance. Blackmane (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember the ANI that led to Bull-doser being indef'd. Although the Commons uploads affect Wikipedia, I'm a bit loathe to assess that as evidence as part of a WP site ban. That's not to say it's not evidence but in general off-WP evidence, even if it is from a sister project, is not usually counted against a user. However, apart from that I remember spending quite some time reading Bull-doser's past history and I usually find that talking to him is like talking to glass. it just goes right through. I've read the page histories of other banned users and as often as not there is a lot of arguing and shouting but at least in those cases you know that they're at least addressing the issue that led to the ban. With Bull-doser, it's more like two people having different conversations in the same room. This may or may not be something to do with their Asperger's, which, though I sympathise with, is

not what wikipedia is here to help with. That being said, I'm not unsupportive of a site ban, but given that Bull-doser is indef'd anyway what exactly would a site ban accomplish beyond allowing automatic reverts of their edits without breaching 3RR? He may be under offer until March this year but even if he does return and ask for an OFFER to be considered, his past history makes it hard for me to think believe that any admin would unblock him anyway. Adhering to OFFER does not mean that it is a get out of jail free card. Blackmane (talk

) 11:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits of blocked editors may be reverted just as edits of banned editors may be -- it doesn't make any difference.NE Ent 12:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically not true (I'm being pedantic here). Exemption to 3RR are only for banned users, their socks and socks of indef'd users not indef'd users themselves. That might need to be amended in

WP:3rr as that seems to be happening as a matter of course now. I might pop over to the talk page of 3RR to suggest this. [[User:Blackmane|Blackmane[[ (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Never mind me, the caffeine hasn't reached the brain yet else I'd not have made that nonsensical statement. Blackmane (talk

) 14:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not to say it's not evidence but in general off-WP evidence, even if it is from a sister project, is not usually counted against a user. If he just uploaded these bad quality images and left them on Wikimedia Commons, it wouldn't be that much of a deal. The problem is that that he post them on Wikipedia too further making a mockery of this website. (BTW, the image is supposed to represent a Zellers store, a Canadian competitor of Walmart and Target.) Farine (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You've basically made my point for me. Deal with the crap images that he uploads here, here. The crap images he uploads to Commons should be dealt with on Commons. Nothing you said changes or invalidates my point. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So we do this commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Empty_Zellers_Dorval_Store.jpg; a ban proposal just isn't useful per Blackmane, Ched, et. al. NE Ent 15:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How many images of Bull-Doser have been deleted in the past because of quality issues? How many more images of Bull-Doser do you want to be deleted in the future because of quality issues? Do you want to continue deleting Bull-Doser's images for the rest of eternity? And what help can be provided to Bull-Doser at this point? Does he even understand why he was blocked and what people are asking him? Farine (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia and Commons are different projects. Banning them here doesn't affect what they can do on commons at all. NE Ent 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Farine, your rhetoric isn't helping your argument. Yes, Bull-Doser has been a pain because of their history that you've outlined in great detail above, but your proposal to ban him is not gaining any traction. A community ban is not going to pass because he just hasn't done the sort of things now that would warrant a pre-emptive site ban. Your final point is irrelevant. We're not here to help him, he has to help himself by understanding the block. If he doesn't understand or is unable to understand then the indef will stand and that will be that. If he starts socking to get around it then a ban discussion would be appropriate then but it isn't appropriate now. Blackmane (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in such hurry when I was reading this page yesterday (due to time constraints) that I've misread what NE Ent wrote and thought he had used the word "helpful" instead of "useful". (a ban proposal just isn't helpful per Blackmane, Ched, et. al). LOL. But you're right Blackmane, the whole "helping" thing has nothing to do with any of this. Farine (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• tl;dr opening statements like this always tend to have me looking for red flags. While it may be a good start for an RfC/U on an unsanctioned user, it seems a bit much for someone who is currently blocked. A quick look seems to indicate that the block is for quite valid reasons (although there is a certain enthusiasm that's easy to appreciate.) That being said, I oppose any further action at this time as a solution to a problem that does not currently exist. (and a quick note to beware the
  wp:boomerang) — Ched :  ? 
  13:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The editor is question is currently very busy with the Montreal auto show, as you can see from his Commons contributions history. While prolific, he's not a very skilled photographer imho. I'm no expert, but it almost looks like he's stripped the emulsion off his lens, or is using a poor quality camera, as most shots seem washed out with lots of lens flares. That said, the majority of his images are well within the Commons' minimum standard (which is pretty minimal), from what I can see. I say this as someone who currently has several of his images, both old and new, up for deletion there.
    talk
    ) 17:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it's been pointed out to me that the camera data shows they are smartphone images. Sorry, I should have checked for that myself.
      talk
      ) 04:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Move to close

If no one has any problems with this, I move that this proposal be closed as no consensus reached on a community ban at the moment but may be revisited in the event of new transgressions being detected. As I've participated in the discussion, it would be inappropriate to do a NAC. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not. It's not like my proposal ban is gonna pass anyway, LOL. Although nobody is perfect, when it comes to these Administrators Noticeboard threads, you are rarely wrong Blackmane (I think it was even you who first made the proposition to indefinitely blocked Bull-Doser back in October 12). You have shared valuable detailed informations about how the Banning policy works that I wasn't aware and that was not clearly specified in the Wikipedia page of this policy, and I really appreciate it. If there's any issues regarding sock-puppetry, you can be sure that I'll be back on this page in no time. Again thanks for your feedback. Take care. Farine (talk) 10:01, 20 February 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.

Routine page move

Done, however Nyttend's right, {{

✉

05:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

 – Already done. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please move

WP:FOUR

) 05:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Couldn't you have placed a {{db-move}} tag on the redirect? Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 19 February 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.

How is ToT supposed to answer Nyttend's question with a close tag around the discussion? NE Ent 02:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It was meant as a rhetorical question; if I'd had any doubt that he could have, I would have waited (to give time for the problem to be resolved) or asked him at his talk page. Nyttend (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Scribunto (Lua scripting for templates) deployed

This has flown under the radar somewhat, but

WP:VPT#Scribunto deploy and forgive the inevitable template breakage. MER-C

11:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata scheduled downtime

Wikidata will be read-only from 19:00 UTC today through 02:00 UTC tomorrow (February 21) in order to upgrade the database schema. During that time the site will not be editable, and it will not be possible to add or remove language links. --Rschen7754 18:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The read-only time will be starting soon and ending a few hours late due to some delays in San Francisco. --Rschen7754 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Community ban

I want to propose a community ban of the indef blocked vandal, User:Sinbad Barron

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sinbad_Barron

Up to now, we have found over 50 confirmed and suspected sockpuppets, with nationalistic rude POV pushing over the edge. I propose this ban in order to allow the possibility of the complete reverts of his edits, by all future socks (that will obviously arrive again). By far, he is not here to create neutral encyclopedia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If you ask me, we should have a policy that all editors with over 50 confirmed socks are considered banned by default. — 
  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}
  23:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment is there some kind script to revert all of a user's edits that can only legally be used if they've been community banned? What exactly is the use of a community ban on an indeffed sockmaster? —Rutebega (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Technically, a community banned editor can have any edit made by them reverted instantly as an edit by a banned editor. Other than that, it just makes us feel good that they're 'legally' unable to edit from now on (not the best word, but still). gwickwire^talk_edits 00:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  In that case, I oppose as mostly redundant. The user's already indeffed, so their edits are invalid anyway (the block applies to the user, not the account, and socks can be blocked immediately once confirmed). —Rutebega (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  Well, if you really want a formal difference, in theory, at least, Sinbad's block could currently be lifted by any involved admin. Yes, any responsible one would seek consensus at AN first, but they'd be able to unblock based on a split consensus without having to worry about getting desysopped or anything. With a ban you're not only adding extra weight to any anti-trolling efforts, you're also requiring a strong community agreement for anyone to unblock the user. — 

  ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

  01:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I've amended my post to reflect that. —Rutebega (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, Pink, that was my idea exactly. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. 50 socks? This user clearly doesn't get it. Just a formality to allow instant reversion of edits on sight of a sock of this user. Ban him with a strong message through e-mail if possible to never come back, ever. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  That is exactly how sockmasters shouldn't be treated. 50 socks means he does get it, he just doesn't care. The more you lash out against a sockmaster, the more they'll come back for more. If you just keep indeffing and ignoring, they'll eventually get bored and leave. Once somebody's socking on this scale, you're wasting your breath if you try to communicate, because they've already made up their mind that they're going to be disruptive. —Rutebega (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rutebega is correct: of course they get it. Displaying righteous anger ("Hot dang" etc.) does nobody any good. Banning an indef-blocked editor is fine, but beyond that it's just RBI. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Are you flipping kidding me? More than 50 socks? Hot dang! Might as well revert every edit of every sock and ban him, and hopefully that should teach him a lesson.
  Mati
  04:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - For a collaborative and consensus-driven project, sockpuppets are extremely disruptive, much more so than 6th grade "penis" vandals, because multiple socks can create the illusion of consensus where none actually exists. As such, any proven sockmaster with a long history of socking and a long list of sockpuppets ought to be banned by the community as a matter of course, so that their edits can be deleted on sight, and so that a single admin doesn't inadvertently set them on the community again by unblocking. This is one instance where we really need to hold the line and not succumb to unwarranted (and dangerous) AGF-ism. The very act of socking is a deliberate blow aimed at the coherence of the community, and multiple acts of sockpuppetry eat away at our foundations. We cannot make consensual decisions unless we are as certain as possible that every voice that is heard is unique and not the result of the manipulations of a sockmaster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Sockpuppetry makes this an easy call. This user causes way too much disruption on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless community ban threads. Support continuing the perfectly functional, already-in-place, give-me-a-break-no-one-is-going-to-unilaterally-unblock de facto ban, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A
    community ban requires the consensus of the community to lift. A "de facto ban" (a phrase that should be banned itself) does not. And pointily !voting against it because it's "pointless" isn't very constructive, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
    19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - With this many socks, the course is clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support emplacing a formal community ban. The editor in question has so egregiously violated the trust of the community that, as stated above, the course is clear.
  TALK
  23:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flo. Can someone supporting the ban provide a link to a "rouge unblock" of a defacto banned editor, since that seems to be one of the concerns here? NE Ent 11:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support As I understand it the request is whether the community supports the block for socking. I do. It appears the community does, even the opposes do. The reasons not to call the ban are not convincing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Has the community ever considered creating some formal definitions of when a user should be considered banned unless stated otherwise? I think The Bushranger isn't far from the mark when he says that we should ban the phrase "de facto ban", and, as I alluded to in my support !vote, it seems to me that users who meet certain criteria could be safely declared banned by default. Every ban discussion like this always includes oppose !votes on the procedural grounds that a ban's already more-or-less in place. While I find such !votes unhelpful (if you don't like the idea, just don't !vote!), I see the point of them... it is rather odd to go through formal procedures against a user who has virtually no chance of ever being unblocked. So, anyways, has such a proposal been rejected in the past, or would an RFC be a good idea? It would really help out with dealing with some LTA issues... we could even have a bot that would place the templates on anyone whose "confirmed sockpuppets" category has 50+ members. — 

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

12:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need any formal definition, just use judgement and clue. The type of community ban discussions I think are dumb, and beneath us, and make us more tribal, are those like this one: an already indef blocked prolific vandal sockmaster who will never, ever, be unblocked unilaterally by an admin. This is just a two minute hate, with the unfortunate side effect of giving them the attention they crave. We don't need a rule to clarify whether this editor will ever be unilaterally unblocked; anyone who thinks this is an actual risk is too unfamiliar with how this place works to be involved with SPI anyway. This isn't hyperbole, I mean every word: if you think there is a risk of a unilateral unblock here, please stop working with sockpuppetry until you've gained more judgement and clue.

I also dislike most community ban discussions here (mostly because they too often come to what I think is the wrong result), but at least it makes sense to have them if the editor is currently unblocked, or if they've just recently been blocked and it's unclear whether or not it's an easy road back, or if something is not decided. Then having a community ban discussion makes some sense. They still make us more tribal, but at least it's potentially for a reason. If it's unclear whether someone is de facto banned, have your community ban discussion. But don't have all these ban discussions for people who we all know are never going to be unilaterally unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that there's no conceivable circumstances under which an admin would unblock someone like this unilaterally. (And, if they did, there'd almost definitely be an ArbCom case, though de facto bans are enough of a grey area that they'd probably get off with a warning.) What is somewhat possible, though, is that an admin could raise the issue of unblocking a prolific sockpuppeteer, get lukewarm support, and then unblock the user, saying that the lack of consensus means it falls under administrative discretion. Not saying that's highly likely, just saying it's a possibility. More importantly, though, Floq: I agree with you. It's tribal and it's needless paperwork. But that's why I'm suggesting this very thing. We draw a simple line in the sand and say "cross it and you're considered banned", and walk away. Suddenly throwing up {{

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too far a stretch to say the community views abusive sockpuppeteering as completely unacceptable and would be grounds for an auto-ban without the need for all the rigamorale of a CBAN discussion. Of course there are cases where people have forgotten to login and saved their edit but anyone who is on-the-ball usually picks up on this and quickly rectifies it. If this question is to be put up to the community, it should be a relatively simple RFC question asking "Is <this condition, abusive socking for example> grounds for an automatic ban?" Blackmane (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I can think of at least one case where an editor who had taken to unashamedly using socks had to be given a formal ban simply to get his friends to give up trying to get him unblocked One Last Time. Additionally, the community as a whole still has a tendency to see a subtle difference between "blocked ninety million times" and "banned" when it comes to letting sock-added content stand (specifically,

our policy stating that it is by definition uncontroversial to revert any edits by banned users). While I dislike pile-ons (the archetypal "two minute hate") more than most, I reckon, I don't really have a problem with the community quickly flipping de facto bans into de jure ones on principle. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk

) 10:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel I should add that while that's not really a big deal in this case and those like it, it's unacceptable when dealing with trolls (the overlap with sockmasters is significant, however). Unless it serves a genuine purpose, adding on more sanctions is just giving trolls exactly what they want and will keep them coming back for more with additional socks. Sincerely, Rutebega (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Our

WP:NOT3RR NE Ent

03:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's now time to just simply make a de facto ban straight away de jure when the first sock is discovered as opposed to the usual "so and so has made X (where X is usually greater than 5) number of socks after being indef blocked, lets ban them." Blackmane (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Hound

BOOMERANG CLOSE

User indeffed by madman. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to request that user Rray be blocked for

WP:Hound. I first asked him politely to stop following me around and blindly voting against me in every content dispute, his response was: 'I will edit when and where I please'. I then warned him that I would report him if he continued, his response was: "I intend to edit when and where I please". This has taken place over several years and I would like action taken please. His goal is simply to make editing for me as unpleasant as possible and to spite me. Not one time in several years has he ever taken a position that wasn't the opposite of mine and he shows up literally every time I'm in a content dispute - I think he must be monitoring all of my edits. Further, when he votes against me he often does so with ad hominem personal attacks and insults, rarely focusing on the content but instead making it personal, despite myself and others warning him repeatedly to stop doing that. DegenFarang (talk

) 04:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Degenfarang should provide links to the ad hominem personal attacks and insults that he claims I made. Of course, since I haven't made any ad hominem personal attacks and insults, this might be difficult. Also, just to provide some context, Degenfarang was (at one time) indefinitely suspended for being disruptive and accusing everyone who disagreed with him of being a sockpuppet. A quick look at my editing history will show that I edit articles on a wide variety of subjects, poker and gambling among them. The only encounters I can recall having with this user have been related to articles in those subject categories--I don't think I've ever discussed an article outside of that subject area with him. I glanced at his edit history, and he does edit articles in other categories, so it's clearly untrue that I monitor all of his edits and blindly vote against him. Degenfarang's insistence that I not edit articles he edits amounts to taking ownership of these articles. Also, his repeated threats and accusations on my talk page (and now here) amount to harassment, intimidation, and bullying. Rray (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You say you've never made ad hominem attacks against me and then you go and make more! As you always do, you're discussing me and my past history and trying to use that to discredit me. That's an ad hominem attack. The topic here is you and your actions. DegenFarang (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you've harassed me (and multiple other users) before, and been blocked for it, provides context--especially since your behavior on my talk page and here fall under that same pattern of harassment. That's not the same thing as an ad hominem attack. Rray (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument" You are not addressing the argument I am making. Your 'context' is not relevant and does not excuse you hounding me. If anything, that's a reason for you to disengage, as you're already aware your presence is going to be seen as a provocation. DegenFarang (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a classic case of

WP:BOOMERANG. OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

a kind of personal attack, so neither of you is helping by simply arguing. Nyttend (talk

) 05:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence is in his response. Instead of addressing what I said, he attempts to change the subject and bring up things that happened several years ago when I was a new editor. All you need to do is look at his recent contributions to see that he is following me around and taking the opposite side in every content dispute. DegenFarang (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avery Cardoza Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) Talk:Steve Badger (poker player) DegenFarang (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As you haven't provided diffs, I went to the pages linked and did a ctrl+f for "Rray". I don't see any ad hominems anywhere, tho I do see a "See project poker, Rray is acting as a meat puppet here for user2005, we should wait for the opinions of other users besides 2005 before deciding what to do. DegenFarang (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC) " on Talk:Steve Badger (poker player) to which Rray seem to have responded constructively and civilly. Likewise later on in the discussion you have accused him of being a sock of 2005, while he has replied without any ad hominems. I would suggest that you look at your own behavior and accusations, and file a SPI report if you feel he is indeed a sockpuppet or argue on the substance, instead of making repeated ad hominem attacks. Again, if you could provide any diffs about this alleged ad hominem attacks you've been subject to, it would be helpful as so far from the links you've provided I've only found ones made by you. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You should look at the dates. That was a long time ago. I have since noticed just by their level of knowledge of the game of poker, that Rray is not a sock. Also probably not a meat, just somebody who enjoys hounding me and voting against me. DegenFarang (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone could look into this, particularly at Steve Badger (poker player) (which may need protecting), its talk page, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker. Amalthea 09:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Since DegenFarang hasn't provided any examples of the insults and personal attacks that he claims I've made, can this discussion be closed? So far, it seems like none of the administrators involved in this discussion seem to think I've done anything wrong, either. Rray (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make one final comment in this discussion. DegenFarang has been blocked 3 times for harassing editors. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADegenFarang). Surely, constantly accusing editors who disagree with him of making personal attacks is just another type of harassment? I'm not the only editor here he's done this with. He's also lodged a similar complaint with another editor he disagrees with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_2005.2C_repeated_personal_attacks. Rray (talk) 17:54, 20 February 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.

Motions with respect to functionaries

In early January 2013, the Arbitration Committee reviewed several aspects of the appointment and review processes related to Checkusers, Oversighters and AUSC members, including the appointment extension of advanced permissions to former arbitrators. In preparation for this review, arbitrators retiring as of 31 December 2012 were permitted to retain Checkuser and Oversight permissions at their request on an interim basis until the completion of the review and decisions on next steps. The motions that the Arbitration Committee will vote on are located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions; other motions may be proposed as well. All functionaries and community members are invited to participate in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Discuss this on the Motions page

Enormous backlog at Requested moves

There are currently 139

Wikipedical (talk

) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just did half a dozen of the older ones. It's all I have time for tonight unfortunately. :) ·
  ✉
  05:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please create talk section

Please create the talk section Talk:PlayStation 4 for PlayStation 4 article. Previous talk sections were deleted and rights were changed to prevent creation of the talk section. I don't need to be notified when you do it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attack and attempt to

WP:OUT - by User:Prathambhu

personal harrasment.
This Outing attempt was done here :Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Location_of_Malayalam_movie_industry

.

Wiki Policy states "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for

WP:personal attack

and dealt with accordingly."

I have issued a warning to the user talk User_talk:Prathambhu#Warning_2. I suggested to I remove all such remarks at the earliest. This is not done yet, instead he continued to do the same.

Timeline of personal attack and attempt to Out:

1. 04:44, 20 February 2013
2. 09:58, 20 February 2013
3. 11:01, 20 February 2013 : Warning issued
4. 13:07, 20 February 2013

Moreover, this user is engaged in edit war with constant reverts in the article violating

WP:3RR

I need admin intervention to

WP:BLOCK

the user. -- Aarem ^(Talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, two points here. Main point: Please, for love of Jimbo, DO NOT PUT OVERSIGHT REQUESTS ON THIS BOARD OR ON AN/I. This board gets tons and tons of attention from tons and tons of users, and if you want information suppressed, this is just about the last place you should be bringing attention to it. Secondary point: speaking from my individual point of view, this appears to be an issue of someone referencing your prior account name, not someone outing you. Outing you would be referencing information about you that you hadn't already shared on Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have revision deleted one of the diffs since entire articles were copied into the page, and that is a copyvio. --Rschen7754 09:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Fluffernutter's assessment; outing is "posting another editor's personal information...unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". Your previous account name is definitely something that you voluntarily posted on Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Havengore - topic ban?

Indeffed by Sandstein. Can't see anyone arguing against the block now... Yunshui 雲‍水 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

User:JamesBWatson reverted his most recent attempts to add peacockery and unsourced POV - you can see the revert here together with the edit summary. JamesBWatson explained his reasons in this comment at User talk:Havengore. Since then Havengore has been re-doing some of his additions and having them reverted again - see the most recent article history

. He has made other problematic edits, including...

• Removing sourced date of birth - [303]
• Specific example of an unsourced POV, "proving most innovative in his..." - [304]
• Refactoring a comment by JamesBWatson (removing only part of it) - [305]
• Refactoring a comment of mine - [306]
• Describing Mr Lamont as the "illustrious subject", implying the opposite of NPOV - [307]

We also had an episode of the same thing in November, when Havengore was pretty disruptive regarding the same two articles. A lot of it is in the user talk page history - pre-blanking version here.

Scottie McClue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 17:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Havengore notified at [308] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed - and edits like this will result in an indef. GiantSnowman 19:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support as proposer (I guess I should say that). Also, Havengore has now refactored another of my comments despite having been told not to - [309], and he's given me a final warning on his talk page, telling me that I'm going to be banned for life - [310] (I have not, of course, broken 3RR) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Support indef bock too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Indef him He's obviously
  WP:NOTHERE. Based on their contrib history, pretty much all of their editing is to these two articles over 2 years, with a smattering on another article if only just to edit war, and personally I find it hard to see that he'd do much else.Blackmane (talk
  ) 20:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• In my individual administrator capacity, after consideration of the above, I am indefinitely blocking Havengore as an eminently disruptive single purpose account. Evidently I also support the topic ban in the event that the block is for some reason lifted.  Sandstein  20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• (e/c)Yes, indef him. Really, I don't think I've ever invoked
  WP:NOTHERE — I'm basically against it as a block reason — but there's always the odd exception. Looking at the "contributions" and the user's talkpage, piddling about with topic bans seems like the wrong level. Support indefblock. Bishonen | talk
  20:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC).
• I fully support Sandstein's action, and would have done the same myself if I had beaten Sandstein to it. The user has been given far more than enough chances, and it is quite clear that he/she has no intention of changing his/her ways, which involve various different problems. Naturally, like Sandstein, I also fully support a topic ban if and when the account is unblocked.
  talk
  ) 20:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have just discovered this edit, in which Havengore removed this section from this page. (Giant Snowman linked to it above, but did not explain what the edit did, and I have only just found out.) If there were any lingering doubt about the indefinite block, surely that would dispel it.
  talk
  ) 20:22, 21 February 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.

Adminstats

Due to a bug, I have temporarily shut down adminstats.—

^Chat

_Online 13:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:-( Just curious: what was going wrong, and when (if you can guess) will it be back up? Thanks very much for running the service. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

NO ADMEN STATZ FER U NYTTEND!--v/r - TP 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well, if I can't have adminstats, I can has cheeseburger? Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought he was offering soup. GiantSnowman 14:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Adminstats is up again, but the bug still persists. It's currently failing to update for certain users. I'm currently working on a patch for it.—

^Chat

_Online 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article

I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See

WP:OTHERPARENT. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

22:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Also see

WP:CIVIL regarding comments here, especially the final two sentences. Nyttend (talk

) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

More importantly right now for Cowicide might be:

BWilkins←✎

) 22:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cowicide has relatively few edits and may not be aware of some of the local customs with regards to editing politically sensitive subjects. -

Nathan Johnson (talk

) 16:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It is no great secret that the Koch articles are heavily camped by various conservatives and that there is a lot of pushback about negative edits to those articles, so I can understand a new editor's frustration. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Koch articles are heavily camped by liberals, and there is a lot of pushback about positive edits to the articles, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:POLE. – S. Rich (talk

) 00:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Main Page about implementing TAFI

I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin could give their input at

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. I feel the discussion on the matter has been sufficient. Since the general proposal met approval, and this specific proposal to implement this version seem to have garnered support, I request that a third party give their two cents. --NickPenguin_(contribs

) 22:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle news for admins

Twinkle

's Page Protection (PP) module has been improved in two ways:

• It sometimes used to edit-conflict with itself; this has now been fixed and should no longer occur.
• It can now be used to apply Pending Changes protection.

I hope those of you using Twinkle enjoy the improvements. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• THANK YOU I had stopped using it for protection because of these issues, glad to know I can count it again.
  talk
  ) 00:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually I don't know if the PC aspect will work yet, but it will certainly work on Monday, after the next WMF deployment is carried out. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeal for help from someone in the Chechen language Wikipedia

Unfortunatly, this isn't something en.wiki can really help with. Perhaps a query at

the Village Pump might be more fruitful? - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

11:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

• I have just received an email from
  User:Дагиров Умар
  in the Chechen Wikipedia:-
  • Hello We in the Chechen no active manager I applied for a bureaucrat and now I need support if you agree please vote here is the link [311] Regards Umar.
  • This link points to page ce:Дехар диллар даржахо дарже. Running its text through the Russian to English translater seems to show an appeal for help saying that the Chechen Wikipedia has 7 administrators and 5 bureaucrats, none of which are active. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

........And.......the English WP admins are supposed to do..........what? Go vote for some guy that we don't know on a project where we don't understand the language? From the looks of the discussion the only opposition is from en.wp users who got hte same email. I think ignore is the best option here, this is none of our business. If the project needs help with administration the stewards are the right party to ask about it, and they are over at meta.

talk

) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the OP is looking for where to report it? I would suggest the stewards at [312] . Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, this is a bit strange. Maybe try m:RFC for their view? Although note that not everything on that Wiki which is in Cyrillic is in Russian – in fact, most of it is in a different language (Chechen, I'm guessing), which far fewer people can understand than the number that can understand Russian, something which might complicate matters. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  This RFC on Meta may help to understand the context, but otherwise this is indeed not relevant for English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from

talk · contribs

)

Resolved

 – Warning issued by Kww.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed everything that has been going on between

talk · contribs) and Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs), however (excuse my upcoming language) this is fucking unacceptable. I honestly couldn't believe what I just saw. Status

07:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For some background this Good article reassessment may also be relavent. AIRcorn (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've warned Aichik. If this continues, I'll issue a block.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Kevin, I think that calling someone a misogynist deserves much more than a warning.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

NPA blocks are difficult to get widespread support for, and doing one with an editor that hasn't received a block warning won't hold.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but this is a clear one-strike warning; anything remotely like that diff again and the block will come so fast it'll

ablate on the way down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

10:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

CSD Backlog

Just a general heads-up, the CSD candidates category is experiencing heavy backlog, with 139 pages as of right now. If a few mop-wielding admins could clear it out a little soon, that would be great. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for filling it up with stuff from

WP:DBR. — Train2104 (talk • contribs

) 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of them are talk pages of disambigution pages, I am going through and replacing them with {{

DisambigProject}}, no need to delete those ones. --kelapstick^(bainuu

) 06:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bullying

I would like to bring to attention an admin who has been bullying me. After I reported a suspected sock-puppet, who indeed did turn out as I had suspected to be using three different accounts to edit one article and was NOT subsequently blocked for the abuse, User:WilliamH claimed that I created a sock-puppet after filing the checkuser request to “reintroduce” questionable content. This simply is not true, and he knows it despite for some reason pettily making that claim, as the moment I created the other account, I made clear on that userpage the purpose of that account AND that I was also editing as user:Argo333 (see User:IranFactChecking).

Furthermore, he decided, out of spite, to involve himself in the edit war and remove 4000+ words worth of referenced content sourced from books and articles, when he only disagreed with two “self-published” sources that I added in the lead (which, in any way, were written by Michael Totten and a Harvard PhD scholar of the Middle-East). At the time that he removed everything, what I added within the article was no longer disputed by the person I disagreed with, who continued only to remove what I added in the lead.

That person should be dealt with, and people shouldn't be using Wikipedia to engage in bullying to vent their frustrations.

Argo333 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please link to the SPI next time: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samar Layoun. That report has not been closed yet, so you're jumping the gun a bit here. Furthermore, this is clear forum shopping. --Rschen7754 20:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just hoping my case could be picked up by someone who edits and oversees Wikipedia for fun, rather than use it as the only outlet where they can feel meaningful and have some "authority". Argo333 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Refraining from personal attacks would help your case, I must say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

10:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the text he removed was poorly sourced, somewhat sensationalist (in the lower sections, at least), and
  overtly slanted towards an anti-Israeli viewpoint. WilliamH perhaps mistakenly implied that your use of the IranFactChecking account was abusive, but it can still strike as an evasive measure for someone to use another username to pursue a similar editing pattern as that which had previously gotten them into trouble (even if it is self-identified). Kurtis ^(talk)
  08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to add my editorial perspective to

WP:SCRUTINY. And next time, please inform editors when they are the subject of a noticeboard discussion. WilliamH (talk

) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Windows Blue

Teacup, storm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I haven't been on Wikipedia for a some time now. But please could someone tell me that

this is not what Wikipedia has become? Rehman

02:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't been here long enough to know that you have to notify the editor you're complaining about when you come here; I've done so for you. As an aside, I have no idea what it is you want here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your classy

PA. But in case you haven't notice, this is not a complaint of any sort; nor am I in any sort of argument with them. Ironically, you're the first person to take this off-subject. This is merely a cross-post to get more opinions on that thread (which involves deletions, and therefore admins). Rehman

02:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't call that an argument? This isn't the right place for you to

bitch and then claim you're not.--Bbb23 (talk

) 02:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not what Wikipedia has become. Wikipedia is, and has been, many contradictory things all at the same time. NE Ent 03:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rehman 03:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a deletion,

WP:DRV is the place to take it in the event discussion with the deleting admin doesn't reach a resolution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

10:58, 24 February 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.

Jaimin bal

• Jaimin bal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jaimin Bal (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Jaimin bal (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Since I can't see the deleted edits this user has made, and putting to one side and COI issues, and given he has received 2 final warnings, one for removal of AfD notices and the other for re-creating articles, which the user appears to have ignored, can an admin see if action is appropriate. LGA _talk^edits 08:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I shall apply an indefinite block if he does any more vanity edits. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the block if it happens again. The last round of page creations (and the user talk move) were after I had fallen asleep last night, so I didn't see it until now. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this editor was also editing as:

Swami dibyananda saraswati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also:

Swami dibyananda saraswati (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The Jaimin Bal article claimed that Swami dibyananda saraswati was the subject's father. It might also be a good idea to keep a look out for variants of this latter article re-appearing. Voceditenore (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have applied for a new CSD regarding the page Wikipedia:Jaimin bal. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 16:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed Jaimin bal (talk · contribs) for continual re-creation. GiantSnowman 17:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin action needed

DELETED

Afd closed by Nyttend. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

This discussion about deleting an article [313] has been going on for one month already and makes for increasingly depressing reading as time goes by and factual arguments give way to PA. My own interpretation is that there is no consensus to delete it, and the article appears both notable and well-sourced, but the name would need to be changed. No interest in the topic myself, but keeping that discussion open will only lead to more and more sock-puppetry from both sides, personal attacks from both sides and other disruptive behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The

Nathan Johnson (talk

) 18:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to close it; everyone else leave it alone for a little bit, please. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 25 February 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.

Redirect request:

ᴅ-glucose

PAPERWORK FILED

Long live the bureaucracy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Over at

D-glucose. The request seems reasonable, but the page can only be created by admins; the "Permissions errors" note said page creation should be requested here. Thanks in advance, Huon (talk

) 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks to Huon for filing the paperwork at AFC/R. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 25 February 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.

Community consultation: Remit of the Ombudsman Commission

The Ombudsman Commission would like to consult the community on their opinions about the remit of the Commission. Please see

this notice. Feel free to cross-post this notice to any appropriate noticeboard. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp

15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

MOVED

Discussion moved to DRV. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I want to ask comunity about one for me questionable admin decision.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo

As far as i can see, result of this per simple !Vote was 16 to keep and 13 to delete. I want to ask the community should this be regarded as keep, no consensus to delete, or delete, also per arguments raised, as this does not looks like delete to me. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's something exceptional going on that you're not mentioning, this is exactly what

WP:DRV is for, rather an AN. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk

) 21:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, i moved it there. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:58, 25 February 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 Disney (and other) films

Just HATting to WP:DENY recognition to a long term vandal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On December 28-30 2008 the (now retired) administrator List of Disney theatrical animated features seems unnecessary at this point. Thoughts? Crazynas t 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Bambifan101's last reported sock was one month ago, so I wouldn't unprotect those articles.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you, I didn't realize that this was an issue of LTA. Crazynas t 21:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC) What if we replaced it with PC? Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC) PC is not an effective tool against sockpuppets. Reviewers focus on the edits, and are generally incapable of detecting that it's the sockpuppeteer making the change. —Kww(talk) 21:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not familiar with Bambifan. What's the problem with his edits, and why would reviewers be unable to catch them? Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) The problem with his edits is that he's a banned editor. The reason why reviewers are normally unable to detect it is because they don't normally look at an editor's contributions to see if it meets a pattern: they look at each edit in isolation. Even if we got them trained to look at overall edit patterns, we would then have to train them how to recognize each of those edit patterns. PC is fine if you want to prevent vandalism, but is completely ineffective against sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) But how do these edits as a group hurt the articles in question? Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Some background here. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Why do you think that reviewers will be unable to detect when "grammar, spelling and syntax as seen on talk pages and edit summaries are poor", unable to notice inappropriate changes to talk pages, and unable to notice that basic changes are being made without sources? Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC) If the PC was configured with a link to LTA I could see this working (and working better then semi since an edit request could get answered without an understanding but PC could not). Crazynas t 22:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Because not all of his edits are bad, but it is still important to prevent all of them, not just the bad ones. Second, because it worked abysmally during the trial and I wound up restoring semi-protection to every article I had protected due to sockpuppeting in the first place. Rejecting good edits because of the editor just isn't something PC is designed to do, and that's what it takes to enforce a ban.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC) More of BF101's dirty work as a sockpuppeteer can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101. Also, just so everyone is aware, Collectonian is actually User:AnmaFinotera, who changed her name some months before her retirement in August 2010. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I am still frequently puzzled as to why all the time and resources have been spent with the goal of preventing Bambifan from editing, regardless of content, ever again, other than just "on principle because he/she is banned"...but for some reason there are many editors/sysops that take this particular case very, very seriously (sometimes seemingly personally)...and I will admit that if one chooses to study the full background of this banned user's history, you will find that the problem is much more complex than simply a prolific vandal. Ditch ∝ 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC) The issues Bambifan101 has, whatever they may be, may be unfortunate but it is not Wiki's place to provide them with an outlet. There are many editors here who have their own issues, again whatever they may be, but they don't let themselves fall afoul of the policies here. Policies apply to everyone, personal problems does not make one exempt from them. There are venues that aid can be asked for and in the culture of good faith that we all aspire to (or should aspire to) many can be helped and many are. However, ones like Bambifan101, who have know self-acknowledgement that their flaunting of the policies is causing sustained damage to the project, need to be shown that they are not welcome here, regardless of how useful a very small proportion of their edits may be. This one isn't a case of baby and bathwater, it's baby, bathwater, bathtub and bathroom that all needs to be thrown out. Blackmane (talk ) 11:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

CSD question

Does this qualify as a {{

G3? It Is Me Here ^{t / c}

11:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously false and obviously garbage. What's the problem? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it's not an article, and so isn't necessarily trying to mislead anyone. See also the next edit: there do appear to be others who agree with me on this. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Hoax" is slightly to narrow a perspective for G3. The litmus test I would use it - if the entire article text appeared in another page, even the most appropriate one for the topic, would you revert it as vandalism? We don't need that to sit for a week at AfD. However, I'm slightly more lenient on user pages. It might just be something they personally identify with and explains their behaviour on wiki. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone replaced an article with "Ritchie333 is a thirtysomething software engineer, musician, road enthusiast and real ale drinker.", shortcuts, Zen details, etc., and a bunch of userboxes, I'd definitely revert it as vandalism, even though your userpage definitely is not vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. I was explaining what I would class as a G3, which this isn't. (Though I'm surprised you refrained to comment on "My favourite vandalism"....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that G3 shouldn't apply to that at the moment. If the editor proceeds to place that anywhere else in the future (if they haven't already been scared off by the tagging), it might qualify at that point, though. There was a recent discussion on the subject of G3s in userspace at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48#G3 clarification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's not formatted as an article, it's not attempting to appear be an article, and it was not created/added to articlespace ... what's the issue? This situation is entirely different than
  BWilkins←✎
  ) 12:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin threats

Hi, not sure if this is the right place so please move if it isnt but,

I just had an admin threaten to block me for reverting his edits that were clearly a violation of NPOV and wp:undue. Just wondering, is that even allowed, and will i be blocked for fixing the article? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 08:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin in question is Buckshot06 ★★RetroLord★★ 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he's not allowed to, but someone else might. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ}

08:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Block me over removing probably incorrect unsourced material? ★★RetroLord★★ 08:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see

WT:MILHIST. Buckshot06 (talk)

08:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to be an extension of an ongoing content dispute, which has also reached
  WT:MILHIST — Crisco 1492 (talk
  ) 08:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• The edits that
  making negative assumptions about the motives of someone who disagrees with you, but frankly you make yourself look ridiculous. And yes, if you continue to remove swathes of text without any discussion, you will likely wind up blocked. Kurtis ^(talk)
  08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Kurtis for reinserting my comment. You beat me to it by about 3 seconds. The original material may have been overly positive at some points, obviously NZ was not really a major player in the Korean War, but I believe Retrolord, while no doubt acting in good faith, has gone too far in the opposite direction and not allowed enough time for others to add citations after CN tags were requested. You'll see my comment about 24 hours; should he wish to remove other dubious material, I would only ask that he mark it and wait the appropriate time so that editors can insert citations. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. It was an accidental removal on Crisco's part, so I guess it goes without saying that no harm was intended. As to your other point, I hadn't meant to imply that the original text was overly slanted in a positive direction or anything, but just that I haven't actually checked it over to make any real contrasts with Retrolord's additions. My cursory review of the article's history was to examine the content dispute. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe its just me, but an admin who is involved in a dispute saying they will block the non-adimn (and relatively new editor) who is on the other side of the dispute is a very small step from violating
  WP:involved and definitely violates the spirit of it. I find this comment utterly unacceptable, and it is attitudes like that which leave a bad taste in non-admins mouths. AIRcorn (talk)
  22:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Where there is smoke there is usually fire. In November Buckshot06 issued a rather uncivil warning block (whatever that is) here. It was also over an article that he was involved in[314]. I don't even see the basis for the block in this case as removing that info arguably improved the article and there was no edit warring that I could see. The block was also labelled vandalism in the block log.[315] AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree that block is a bad, not sure any admin should be saying "Any appeal can be directed to my talkpage in the first instance" where is the use of the standard block template with the correct details on how to appeal ? How can he appeal to the blocking admin if he is blocked and can only edit his own talk page ? Why wait 2+ weeks to issue the block smacks of punishment rather than preventative. LGA _talk^edits 23:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• • This one just confuses me. Someone is given a six month block for vandalism nine months after their last edit (which wasn't even vandalism)?[316] There is also another "warning block" here.[317] AIRcorn (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    • On Wikipedia, where there is smoke there is sometimes fire is more accurate; in this case, however, I concur something's amiss. NE Ent 12:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Very concerning admin actions. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Mmmm. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Buckshot06 should strike their threat to block Retrolord, and an explanation of the block on Kamal44 would be appropriate. NE Ent 12:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Huh. I wonder, is Buckshot06 still following this thread carefully? The citations listed above by Aircorn (specifically the situation regarding Kamal44) don't reflect very well on him. =/ Kurtis ^(talk) 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Left a note at his talk page asking him to return here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for advising me Aircorn. The issue is pretty simple. Anyone who has been monitoring the Milhist talk page may be aware that we have a large number of not highly visited armed forces articles, some in places like Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan where we have significant numbers of POV warriors. Anyone who closely examined Kamal44's edits will have seen virtually every edit he made had to be reconsidered or rolled back across the entire range of Kazakh related articles he edited. He repeatedly vandalised the Kazakh Armed Forces article to push his Turkic agenda, and he simply isn't the kind of editor this site needs. Now he appeared to have left the site, but we do not need or want his kind of editor here - for those kind of articles, we need effectively good researchers, dedicated to putting the facts as can be found out, without inflating or creating nonexistent armoured vehicles, fighters, removing truthful material that doesn't suit them, etc. I suppose I could have raised it to some sort of forum, but which? The wikiprojects on these countries are hardly visited, and the Milhist project has had an entire *page*/project which was dedicated a while back to remove outright falsities from articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Contest/2012_Cleanup_Campaign). In summary, he was not the kind of editor we need, and I didn't want his to come back. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what exactly about his edits that was

WP:VANDAL, which was the reasoning for the block? Please be specific. Thank you. — raekyt

08:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a textbook case of a

the chance to screw up before being blocked. AIRcorn (talk)

10:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, on the topic of admin threats, what are we going to do about Buckshots borderline violation (in spirit atleast) of WP:involved? A retraction of that remark would seem appropriate ★★RetroLord★★ 05:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Retrolord was removed sourced data from historical works by professional historians describing the evolution of the NZ Army in the 20th Century (specifically, encapsulations of the end of the coastal artillery capability). Entirely within the GNG, entirely valid, referenced data. Yes, in retrospect my behaviour was overhasty and intemperate - and I've learnt my lesson in this case, but surely you should at the very least be examining his conduct as well? Did I actually block him? No. What I wanted him to do was to slow down and consider his edits, which had already been raised as borderline. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed statements I believed to be a violation of WP:NPOV using WP:BOLD, you added it back. Some sections appear to be WP:RECENTISM (The M113 replacement section). In the end I dont think my actions were that bad at all. And they certainly do not excuse this sort of behaviour from an admin. As an admin, you are expected to be an upholder of wikipedias policies and guidelines, and should be familiar with such a basic rule as WP:INVOLVED. Making threats when you dont get your own way, because I made your article more neutral is 100% unacceptable.

Regarding the discussion above about the blocked user, his case seems somewhat similar to mine. You arbitrarily decided that Kamal44's contributions were not welcome, nor was he. You stated that "we do not need or want his kind of editor here" and that you "didn't want his to come back". Seems more like a punishment block, not a preventative one. Another example of sysop abuse from our friend Buckshot06. ★★RetroLord★★ 06:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is, in my considered opinion, misrepresentation. Under the edit summary 'Removed significant bias, unsourced facts', you actually removed the scored out sections below, including a reference:

The 1957 National Government defence review directed the discontinuation of coastal defence training, and the approximately 1000 personnel of the 9th, 10th, and 11th Coastal Regiments

Compulsory Military Training obligation removed. A small cadre of regulars remained, but as Henderson, Green, and Cook say, 'the coastal artillery had quietly died.'^[1]

All the fixed guns were dismantled and sold for scrap by the early 1960s.

I will ask you again: how do you possibly consider this 'unsourced' or 'biased', and *why* did you remove this commentary by professional historians in the first place? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cherry picking evidence and ignoring my post about the M113! I removed that part because I felt it was too colloquial and unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. I probably used the wrong edit summary tho. Feel free to rewrite the part or add it back if you disagree. Thanks for also ignoring everything I said about your behaviour as an admin. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, a retraction of your block threat would seem appropriate as it was a gross abuse of your administrator privileges. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am addressing exactly why I made the ill-considered threat you are referring to. Is that not what you wanted addressed? You removed considered opinions by professional historians. That kind of thing is *not* what is desired here: we want people adding such material. As to the M113 issue, as I explained to you on your talkpage, the section (again) was well-sourced (meeting the GNG), and completely appropriate (the history of the NZ Army's equipment). Just needs to be matched by sections, again as I explained on your talk page, on the artillery, the Valentines, the Walker Bulldogs, the Centurions, and the Scorpions (plus things like Mistral). Buckshot06 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note:Is there a better place to continue this discussion. Not the one about the NZ army article, as I have given up on ever getting a compromise out of Buckshot but a place to discuss his innapropriate actions and abuse of his admin privileges? An rfc perhaps? ★★RetroLord★★ 07:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to say I'm staggered by this. You started this discussion talking about 'probably incorrect unsourced material', have admitted that this was incorrect twice based on the very sections (like M113s) that you raised, and you're not even considering admitting that you've walked very close to the line yourself. How many times do you have to have it explained to you that this is exactly why I censured you? Yes, my threat was ill-considered, and I should not have made it. I apologise. But surely you realise that the actions you took had already attracted adverse comment, and did so above, by User:Kurtis, who specifically said you'd be be likely to attract blocks if you removed sections of (well-referenced) text? Can you not realise that while the specific action (the block threat) was unwarranted, everything else was, and has been supported by other editors? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective its all a bit irrelevant. Your the admin, not me. Its up to you to be the rolemodel, not me. Perhaps i made a mistake. But your an admin, you cant make mistakes like this. With your questionable block of the account mentioned above, your gross violation of WP:involved and abuse of admin privileges, it seems that you are the one walking "close to the line". ★★RetroLord★★ 08:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Buckshot has just apologised to you, so continuing on with the same complaints seems a bit pointless: if you have a broader concern about their conduct as an admin, start a

WP:RFC/U. Your statement that you have no obligation to be a role model is a bit odd: all editors are expected to behave in a civil and productive fashion, and this is common sense (eg, don't do anything which wouldn't be considered good form at work/university). It's a shame that these edits weren't discussed on the NZ Army article's talk page - it's generally a good idea to discuss, or at least explain, significant changes to high profile articles such as this one. But that's water under the bridge and it seems time to move on. Nick-D (talk

) 09:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply above. I am not sure how to respond to it yet and would rather see how more experienced editors see it. I have had a good look at your contributions and will admit to being impressed with your dedication. However, I do hold some quite serious concerns about your use of the block button. I am hoping you can explain your thinking behind these blocks as well.

• As I brought up above, Superzohar (talk · contribs) was given a warning block[318] for 24 hours because of this edit. The edit he was blocked for occured over three weeks before the block. I have a few questions. What is a warning block? Why was that edit considered vandalism and not a content dispute? Why was there no warning given to the user before issueing the block?
• 217.67.17.109 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 1 month for edit warring. They received no warnings and a quick look through their contributions revealed some positive edits.[319][320] I could not find any obvious edit warring, but given the timing of the block it may be because of their edits to Hungarian Air Force[321] A few more questions (some are the same as above). Where is the edit warring? Why no warning? Why protect the page and block the IP? Why is the block over two weeks since the incident?

I realise that this is going to come across accusatory, but I find these really concerning. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the protection of the Hungarian Air Force Article, I imagine that it was sparked by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 117#Hungarian Air Force. There's been a long running problem with IP editors making dubious and/or entirely unreferenced edits which change the figures on the amount of equipment operated by the miltaries of former eastern bloc and developing countries. What was going on in the Hungarian Air Force article up to the point where protection was imposed (and not two weeks before as you imply) was entirely characteristic of this behaviour, and an intervention by Nigel Ish (talk · contribs) to encourage the use of reliable sources was totally unsuccessful (see Talk:Hungarian Air Force#Mi 24 Hind, not to mention the previous post in which an IP editor asked for the article to be protected). As such, protecting the article to stop this edit war was sensible. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

From

WP:BLOCK "In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate." These blocks are well after the circumstances have been "cold." Is there some sort of sanction on these articles that give administrators a much wider degree of blocking then would normally be accepted? — raekyt

10:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was more concerned about the block than the protection. If an article is protected, then blocking an ip seems redundent at the least. The only reason I can think of to block the ip was that buckshot thought he was the same as the other ips that had been edit warring or there was more than one article that the IP was edit warring over. FWIW wouldn't pending changes be ideal for these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you weren't particularly concerned about the protection, I'm not sure why you raised it as an issue (I completely agree with you on pending changes; from memory it was very helpful for these types of articles during its brief career). I note that 217.67.17.109 was engaging in pretty unhelpful behaviour immediately before the block - in these series of edits on 4 February he or she removed a reasonable reference from the Italian Air Force article for no apparent reason, and fiddled with the figure on the number of aircraft the air force operates in a way which isn't actually supported by the reference given (by my count, the World Air Forces report states that the force has 482 aircraft and not 470 as claimed by the editor - they appear to have changed the figure for one type of aircraft and then changed the total in the article accordingly, without actually consulting their claimed source for that total which doesn't support either figure). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it gives the impression that blocking the ip was more about punishment than damage preventative. There may well be another reason beyond the edits to Hungarian Air Force to block the ip, I initially thought it might be that he thought it was Kamal44, but it is not obvious to me. Anyway, I think Buckshot is being a bit too heavy with the block button. While I understand he works in areas with strong nationalistic tendencies, maybe it would be better if he concentrates more on just using some form of article protection or asks someone else to look at these cases. AIRcorn (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Was there any attempt to educate the user through warnings or any communication before a month long block was issued? — raekyt 10:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure; that's a question for Buckshot (I personally would have given a stern warning or a short block, but this person may have a history under different IP addresses). My point is that it doesn't appear correct to refer to the matter as 'cold'. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Polequant (talk

) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not normal but certainly not unusual, and I have seen IPs blocked for longer. GiantSnowman 10:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you just using this opportunity to take potshots? We don't usually indef IP's ... 6 months is not necessarily abnormal, depending on the circumstances. Potshots don't become you (

BWilkins←✎

) 10:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As a first time block? Where there is no long term history of vandalism? Better change what the blocking policy says then if these are not 'unusual' blocks. And no, I have never come across buckshot before. I don't want him desysopped. I want him to do the job he has been given properly. Concerns have been raised over his blocking, and looking through the log, the last 8 or 9 look dubious, either in blocking at all or in their length. This seems like a reasonable concern, but instead you accuse me or taking potshots. Brilliant response as ever.

Polequant (talk

) 10:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Block removal

No consensus to allow this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

This is a formal request to switch accounts. For privacy reasons it is not possible for me to edit certain topics from this account. Normally I just use an alternate account per policy, but until the restriction limiting me to one account I will need to flip accounts every two months. So now that I am caught up on the solar accounts, what I need to have done is to unblock Delphi234 and indef block Apteva. This same flip will be done every two months until the restriction is lifted. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Changing back-and-forth between accounts? It would be better to have one of them deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• It would be helpful to people looking at this request if you can provide links to the current implementation of any community or arbcom restrictions you're under. An explanation of how "flipping" accounts on a regular schedule will help your privacy would also be good. Without that information, it's difficult to evaluate what you want or whether it's grantable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) No - choose one account and edit from it, we will not be blocking & unblocking your two accounts wvery few months because you want to edit something different. I have asked this multiple times, and never received a satisfactory answer - why do you need two accounts? What are these "privacy reasons" which means you must have two accounts? GiantSnowman 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Count me in as confused also. How on Earth does this request make any sense? You are requesting, for privacy reasons, to switch back and forth between accounts? --Onorem♠Dil 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Your last block (for 2 weeks not quite a month ago) was for violating a topic ban. You say, "So now that I am caught up on the solar accounts, what I need to have done is to unblock Delphi234 and indef block Apteva." Are you topic banned and thinking that the ban only applies to the account name instead of to you? Which name you use doesn't matter. YOU are topic banned. --Onorem♠Dil 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • As explained below topic bans apply to the person, not the account. Apteva (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• I think you can consider this request denied. It is utter nonsense, per all the above remarks.
  talk
  ) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• No and no. You're restricted to one account. Flipping between two accounts is, even if not simultaneously, using two accounts. Besides this I'm not convinced that this privacy spiel is the genuine reason behind the request, and even if it is I'm yet to see any evidence as to why it's necessary. And even if the above were not true, I can't see how it would help, as there is no way you're going to be allowed to edit from either account without it being tied publicly to the other. Like beeblebrox said, I think you should consider this stuff about being allowed two accounts over.
  _berate
  21:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Like the others, I don't particularly see how this would help anything. I would be willing to support permitting the use of a second account for password-safety reasons only (i.e. something like "Apteva alternate" for use on public computers, so keyloggers wouldn't be able to steal your main account's password), but that's the only reason I'd see myself supporting relaxing the current restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• For anyone who understands how alternate accounts are used properly, the sequence is this. If everyone used their real name for editing there would be less need for alternate accounts, and the only need would basically be for test purposes and for logging in from a location that could easily be compromised, such as a public wi-fi network or computer. Doing that though would eliminate a lot of contributors, such as myself, who edit solely on the basis of anonymity. However, that means that certain edits can not be made from the same account, and that is the main reason that I use an alternate account and the only reason that I am making this request. Sure I have no problem doing lots of solar edits, but it is impossible for me for privacy reasons for doing certain other edits, and the unintened consequence of this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account was that a large portion of my edits have vanished. No one intended that to happen, and there are two options. Remove the restriction or switch accounts. If anyone wants to follow me around and check all my edits they are welcome to, but there is no possibility that any problem will be found, and such wiki-hounding is not recommended. In case anyone wonders, yes the topic ban applies to the person not the account, so the letter K ban would apply to Delphi234. Apteva (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Your accounts are already publicly linked. Switching back and forth on which one is blocked doesn't do anything. Pick one and go with it. --Onorem♠Dil 21:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Obviously I am picking the Delphi234 account, but during the restriction on alternate accounts that will mean no edits to any solar articles. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "For anyone who understands how alternate accounts are used properly," - People who understand how they are used properly generally aren't restricted from having them. What difference does it make which account you use to make which edits when they are linked already? --Onorem♠Dil 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Exactly, and restricting me is pointless, but I can not appeal the restriction until a more appropriate time has passed. But what I can do is ask that the accounts be flipped. Presumably everyone will get tired of this request and just remove the restriction. Apteva (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok, let me see if I understand your reasoning correctly: You have two accounts, X and Y. For privacy reasons you can't disclose, you feel that account X can't edit in topic area T (and perhaps account Y can't edit in topic area Q). However, you're also restricted to using one account. You're interpreting that as "one account at any one time", and your solution is to repeatedly switch accounts - for two months, you'd use account X and edit topic T; then for two months you'd use account Y and edit topic area Q. If that's a correct interpretation of what you're asking to be allowed to do, I'm going to have to agree with all the other naysayers here. One-account restrictions are put in place to limit a user to one account; serial account swapping doesn't pay off to the community in cases like this, and usually confuses issues rather than calming them. If you feel that your privacy doesn't allow for you to edit in topic area T, the solution is to avoid T, not try to slip around that by using another account. And asking solely to tire us out so that we eventually say yes is...well, let's just say it's not the greates plan. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Two months was chosen because most of the data that I use for updating the articles is released once a month and the ones not updated would only be out of date one month if I flipped them once every two months. The privacy reason is specified - that my real world identity is compromised, and that is not only allowed by Wikipedia, but it is required - I would not edit unless I was able to maintain that anonymity. I am not asking to tire anyone out. I have a topic ban and while it is in effect the single account restriction was applied, although, that was not necessary and has unintended consequences, and was not a good idea. Presumably in six months all restrictions can be removed, including the topic ban. Apteva (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the privacy argument. If we all know that both accounts are the same person, then how does having two accounts help you in any way? --regentspark (comment) 22:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We is not who I am concerned about! Of course I know who I am and of course some people can figure out that I am editing under both accounts, but not the vast majority of readers! The fact that an editor can be outed is not important. What is important is that they not be publicly outed, as it usually means they will choose to forever stop editing WP. Apteva (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• The only way I can see that this makes any sense is if Apteva told someone else in real life that they were Apteva, but not about Delphi234, and Apteva doesn't want said real-life person to know about the edits that they'd make as Delphi234. If so, it sounds like a case of "Apteva's problem, not ours", to be honest. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No that is not what it is, and Apteva's problem becomes Wikipedia's problem if it interferes with Apteva's ability to edit Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • "For privacy reasons it is not possible for me to edit certain topics from this account." Then this really is just you own problem and not Wikipedia's. While I am all for taking any privacy issue seriously, this seems to be about your concerns about editing "certain" topics as Apteva and for some reason that seems a bit like a red flag.--
      talk
      ) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Why would it be a red flag? It is one of the fundamental reasons that alternate accounts are allowed. I can either switch accounts or stop editing those subjects. Stopping is not a beneficial result. We are already losing editors at an asymptotic rate and I have no intention of being one of them. Apteva (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Take option B, stop editing those subjects. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, literaly nobody thinks this is something we should do for you. It's not going to happen. Either don't edit those aerticles or "take the risk" of using the one account you are permitted to use. Again, your request is denied. There is no support whatsoever for it and no admin will be doing this for you. Please

talk

) 22:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Silly, and Wikipedia's loss. This is frankly more than absurd. Apteva (talk) 22:35, 26 February 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.

Improper merge

In an ongoing

Heart and Soul (1938 song), User:Kww, an admin who expressed an opinion in that merge discussion, subsequently merged the source article into the target article[322][323] after another editor suggested that "perhaps it's time to merge per kww and move on,"[324] even though the discussion was not closed and Kww had a demonstrated potential conflict of interest/lack of impartiality for the merge action prior to the merge edits. Was this a proper admin action? Also, please undo the merge edits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk

) 13:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This does not look like an admin action to me. Nymf _{talk to me} 14:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No admin tools were used. Your argument with me is with me as an editor, not as an admin.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My thinking in posting here was that administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and have actions that are compatible with the status of administrator. No admin tools were used, so apparently this was not an admin action. In any event, I would appreciate someone returning the two article to their unmerged state since the merge discussion is ongoing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• The two article continued to be reverted from their unmerged state.[325][326] There have only been three editors commenting in that merge discussion and now the merge notices are gone. If this is the wrong board to obtain assistance in this, please let me know where I can go to get assistance in allowing the merge discussion to take place without disruption. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• The merge discussion has taken place. What you seem to be seeking assistance in is undoing the result and reopening the discussion. Your frenzy of taking the discussion to such various places as
  opening a merge proposals after the merge is complete is getting disruptive.—Kww(talk
  ) 03:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Complaints that this merge was closed too quick should be compared with this edit by User:Uzma Gamal where s/he removed the merge tag to stop a discussion actually happening. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Richhoncho, you did not open a discussion even two days after you posted that merge tag.[327] You then readded the merge tag[328] and opened a dicussion[329]. The merge discussion is open because it has not been closed. See
  close the merger discussion and determine consensus -- Uzma Gamal (talk
  ) 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• (vaguely involved editor) I feel this issue is really about Uzma Gamal not getting enough credit for the substantial
  Surturz (talk
  ) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Surturz, you have made a very good point and I am pleased you have awarded Uzma his deserved barnstar. Most of Uzma's work will continue to exist in the much improved
  Heart and Soul (1938 song). --Richhoncho (talk
  ) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Per step 8 of
  WP:FMERGE, the courteous thing to do when merging is use the provided {{Merged-from}} and {{Merged-to}} templates on the article talk pages to credit the authors of the merged from article. I've completed this step. NE Ent
  00:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

unblock review: User talk:Chutznik

Unblocked by

Optimist on the run. Nyttend (talk

) 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

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

This user was indeffed blocked for a gross violation of

talk

) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox. Let me add a couple of points. First of all, in past discussions it has been said that I don't understand why I was blocked. This is false. I was blocked because I made an edit as Throwaway666 (talk · contribs) where the content of the edit was "The result of the [AFD] debate was [f___] you," and the edit summary was "Majorly's real name is [name]." I also made other edits around that time nine months ago from other sockpuppets that violated policies against vandalism and harassment. For everything I did wrong, I apologize to Majorly, to Sandstein, to the community at large, and to the individual editors who had to undo the damage I caused. Having done many hours of vandalism patrol, I recognize what a burden every vandalism edit places upon experienced editors whose time would be better spent improving articles. I was under stress in real life at the time I made those edits, but that is no defense. In the future, when I am under stress, I simply will not edit Wikipedia, or if I do, I will edit within policy.

Second, EdJohnston pointed out in the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard three months ago that he would like to see an explanation of what I would do if I were unblocked. As a long-time editor (since November 2005) with 30,000+ edits, I should not need to explain what I have to offer. Nevertheless, I will. I am a law school student, so I might contribute in articles related to American law. Also, I am experienced at Wiki=gnoming, such as adding categories to uncategorized pages. I will not be editing every day or even every month, but I would like to come here once in a while to add content or to build the web by categorizing pages. I also have experience in community affairs such as RFCs and noticeboards, and would contribute there on occasion.

Third, an unblock discussion is not a Request for Adminship. Some users said in the previous discussion that they don't trust me not to create sockpuppets and vandalize again. I'm not sure how to respond to that, but I'll try this: you don't have to trust me. You just have to impose the restriction (no sockpuppets, no vandalism), and I am fully aware of the consequences if I violate the restriction (another indef-block, and this time I may never get out of it). Consider the risk-benefit ratio. The risk is perhaps one chance in a hundred that I will go crazy and vandalize again, and someone will have to revert the vandalism and block the offending account. Although this is not a good thing, I wish to remind you that administrators on Wikipedia deal with this type of situation literally every hour of every day. Conversely, the benefit is that I may contribute hundreds or even thousands of productive edits to Wikipedia in the coming months and years. Unblocking me would be on the same rationale that we allow unregistered users to edit; each individual editor probably will not vandalize, and if they do, it's worth it to allow the vandalism to get the benefit of the positive contributions that come from unregistered editors. Just to be clear, I promise never to vandalize again, but if you don't trust me to keep that promise, you can fall back on the risk-benefit calculus. Chutznik (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the premise there's been no socking, support unblocking. NE Ent 21:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't fault his logic. Support unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember nothing of this, but since I'm mentioned, I appear to have been somehow involved? Anyway, this is one of the relatively few apparently sincere and useful unblock requests I've ever seen, and on that basis I suppose we can lift the block as probably no longer needed for preventive purposes. That is, provided that the people affected by the outing are notified and have no objection.  Sandstein  22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with NE, Wehwalt and Sandstein; it's worth a shot. 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: it appears you had just relisted the AFD just before the outing/socking/vandalizing inciddent. The user who was outed was actually already inactive well before this incident so unless they pulled a clean start or something they are probably completely unaware of this.
  talk
  ) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the understanding that future misbehavior will result in an indef block that will be a lot harder to get overturned. Should probably include a one-account restriction as well. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 00:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry, and normally I'm a huge proponent of "anyone can edit", but there's just something here that feels wrong to me. I feel like we're getting played. I won't bother debating the issue, and on general principle I applaud giving a person a second chance - but my gut feeling here is "trouble waiting to happen". Sorry. I'm good with wp:rope and all, so I guess we'll see what happens. — Ched :  ?  01:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Non admin support Everyone deserves the standard offer and this appears to be VERY genuine to me.--
  talk
  ) 02:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We've recently seen a

run!

  06:43, 27 February 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.

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

There is a heavy backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Mopers Moppers (AKA admins) needed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I trust that you mean "moppers" as opposed to "mopers".... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, fixed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dang. I'm really good at moping. I thought my hour had arrived ;) The Interior (Talk) 02:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks for noticin' me. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What to do in this case

There is a content dispute, we are unable to resolve in the talk page, the other party does not accept any type of mediated dispute resolution mechanism. What could be done in such a case? (Sorry if this is not the correct place to ask, I tried

WP:EA but no useful suggestion came up.) Filanca (talk

) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A few ideas: Ask for a

WP:DRN. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

see the section called "POV Pushing" for more background on this  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 If you are referring to this, then the other party does not need to accept an RFC if you do it on the article rather than the editor. Place an RFC notice on the talk page per the instructions here. Remember if it does not go your way, life still goes on. Rgrds. --64.85.217.110 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

( Facepalm) I forgot

WP:RFC, which is kind of Dispute Resolution 101. Thanks, 64.*. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the other party strictly refuses to bring the issue to any sort of mediation,

WP:3O may still need cooperation from the other side. Thank you all. Filanca (talk

) 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Improper merge

In an ongoing

Heart and Soul (1938 song), User:Kww, an admin who expressed an opinion in that merge discussion, subsequently merged the source article into the target article[331][332] after another editor suggested that "perhaps it's time to merge per kww and move on,"[333] even though the discussion was not closed and Kww had a demonstrated potential conflict of interest/lack of impartiality for the merge action prior to the merge edits. Was this a proper admin action? Also, please undo the merge edits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk

) 13:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This does not look like an admin action to me. Nymf _{talk to me} 14:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No admin tools were used. Your argument with me is with me as an editor, not as an admin.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My thinking in posting here was that administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and have actions that are compatible with the status of administrator. No admin tools were used, so apparently this was not an admin action. In any event, I would appreciate someone returning the two article to their unmerged state since the merge discussion is ongoing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• The two article continued to be reverted from their unmerged state.[334][335] There have only been three editors commenting in that merge discussion and now the merge notices are gone. If this is the wrong board to obtain assistance in this, please let me know where I can go to get assistance in allowing the merge discussion to take place without disruption. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• The merge discussion has taken place. What you seem to be seeking assistance in is undoing the result and reopening the discussion. Your frenzy of taking the discussion to such various places as
  opening a merge proposals after the merge is complete is getting disruptive.—Kww(talk
  ) 03:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Complaints that this merge was closed too quick should be compared with this edit by User:Uzma Gamal where s/he removed the merge tag to stop a discussion actually happening. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Richhoncho, you did not open a discussion even two days after you posted that merge tag.[336] You then readded the merge tag[337] and opened a dicussion[338]. The merge discussion is open because it has not been closed. See
  close the merger discussion and determine consensus -- Uzma Gamal (talk
  ) 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• (vaguely involved editor) I feel this issue is really about Uzma Gamal not getting enough credit for the substantial
  Surturz (talk
  ) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Surturz, you have made a very good point and I am pleased you have awarded Uzma his deserved barnstar. Most of Uzma's work will continue to exist in the much improved
  Heart and Soul (1938 song). --Richhoncho (talk
  ) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Per step 8 of
  WP:FMERGE, the courteous thing to do when merging is use the provided {{Merged-from}} and {{Merged-to}} templates on the article talk pages to credit the authors of the merged from article. I've completed this step. NE Ent
  00:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

unblock review: User talk:Chutznik

Unblocked by

Optimist on the run. Nyttend (talk

) 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

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

This user was indeffed blocked for a gross violation of

talk

) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox. Let me add a couple of points. First of all, in past discussions it has been said that I don't understand why I was blocked. This is false. I was blocked because I made an edit as Throwaway666 (talk · contribs) where the content of the edit was "The result of the [AFD] debate was [f___] you," and the edit summary was "Majorly's real name is [name]." I also made other edits around that time nine months ago from other sockpuppets that violated policies against vandalism and harassment. For everything I did wrong, I apologize to Majorly, to Sandstein, to the community at large, and to the individual editors who had to undo the damage I caused. Having done many hours of vandalism patrol, I recognize what a burden every vandalism edit places upon experienced editors whose time would be better spent improving articles. I was under stress in real life at the time I made those edits, but that is no defense. In the future, when I am under stress, I simply will not edit Wikipedia, or if I do, I will edit within policy.

Second, EdJohnston pointed out in the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard three months ago that he would like to see an explanation of what I would do if I were unblocked. As a long-time editor (since November 2005) with 30,000+ edits, I should not need to explain what I have to offer. Nevertheless, I will. I am a law school student, so I might contribute in articles related to American law. Also, I am experienced at Wiki=gnoming, such as adding categories to uncategorized pages. I will not be editing every day or even every month, but I would like to come here once in a while to add content or to build the web by categorizing pages. I also have experience in community affairs such as RFCs and noticeboards, and would contribute there on occasion.

Third, an unblock discussion is not a Request for Adminship. Some users said in the previous discussion that they don't trust me not to create sockpuppets and vandalize again. I'm not sure how to respond to that, but I'll try this: you don't have to trust me. You just have to impose the restriction (no sockpuppets, no vandalism), and I am fully aware of the consequences if I violate the restriction (another indef-block, and this time I may never get out of it). Consider the risk-benefit ratio. The risk is perhaps one chance in a hundred that I will go crazy and vandalize again, and someone will have to revert the vandalism and block the offending account. Although this is not a good thing, I wish to remind you that administrators on Wikipedia deal with this type of situation literally every hour of every day. Conversely, the benefit is that I may contribute hundreds or even thousands of productive edits to Wikipedia in the coming months and years. Unblocking me would be on the same rationale that we allow unregistered users to edit; each individual editor probably will not vandalize, and if they do, it's worth it to allow the vandalism to get the benefit of the positive contributions that come from unregistered editors. Just to be clear, I promise never to vandalize again, but if you don't trust me to keep that promise, you can fall back on the risk-benefit calculus. Chutznik (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the premise there's been no socking, support unblocking. NE Ent 21:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't fault his logic. Support unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember nothing of this, but since I'm mentioned, I appear to have been somehow involved? Anyway, this is one of the relatively few apparently sincere and useful unblock requests I've ever seen, and on that basis I suppose we can lift the block as probably no longer needed for preventive purposes. That is, provided that the people affected by the outing are notified and have no objection.  Sandstein  22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with NE, Wehwalt and Sandstein; it's worth a shot. 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: it appears you had just relisted the AFD just before the outing/socking/vandalizing inciddent. The user who was outed was actually already inactive well before this incident so unless they pulled a clean start or something they are probably completely unaware of this.
  talk
  ) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the understanding that future misbehavior will result in an indef block that will be a lot harder to get overturned. Should probably include a one-account restriction as well. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 00:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry, and normally I'm a huge proponent of "anyone can edit", but there's just something here that feels wrong to me. I feel like we're getting played. I won't bother debating the issue, and on general principle I applaud giving a person a second chance - but my gut feeling here is "trouble waiting to happen". Sorry. I'm good with wp:rope and all, so I guess we'll see what happens. — Ched :  ?  01:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Non admin support Everyone deserves the standard offer and this appears to be VERY genuine to me.--
  talk
  ) 02:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We've recently seen a

run!

  06:43, 27 February 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.

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

There is a heavy backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Mopers Moppers (AKA admins) needed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I trust that you mean "moppers" as opposed to "mopers".... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, fixed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dang. I'm really good at moping. I thought my hour had arrived ;) The Interior (Talk) 02:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks for noticin' me. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Move this page please

Resolved

 – --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_cysts_of_the_jaws#Requested move

Thanks. Lesion (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus to be established at the RM discussion. GiantSnowman 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fast reply. Honestly, I don't think anyone else cares about this page to comment. Lesion (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way - if there is no opposition to the move then the closing admin should move it as uncontroversial. We will have to wait for a few days to see what input/comments are made. GiantSnowman 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think the problem might be that Lesion didn't know that if you genuinely believe a move is uncontroversial, you can just be bold and move it yourself.
  WP:RM is more for moves that might be disputed. This looks uncontroversial to me, and the editor who has dramatically expanded the page in the last couple of days agrees with the move, so I'm inclined to just close the RM as unnecessary and move the page, and on the 1% chance someone disagrees, they can move it back and discuss it some more. But I've used up my "unilaterally overrule another admin" tokens for February. GS, while you're technically right, do you care if I IAR/BURO this one? --Floquenbeam (talk
  ) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all, go for it. GiantSnowman 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh no!! now I have to figure out how to close a requested move! Thanks GS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Stop being so bloody helpful then ;) GiantSnowman 16:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I see they needed an admin's help anyway, as the target had a short history due to a previous double redirect. All done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Lesion (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• For future reference, closing instructions are at
  WP:RM, any help in clearing it out would be appreciated (the way WP:RM is designed, there is not supposed to be any backlog, ever). I am happy to report that we have been making good progress, the backlog is down to 32 right now (from over 100), plus 28 that were relisted... Apteva (talk
  ) 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What to do in this case

There is a content dispute, we are unable to resolve in the talk page, the other party does not accept any type of mediated dispute resolution mechanism. What could be done in such a case? (Sorry if this is not the correct place to ask, I tried

WP:EA but no useful suggestion came up.) Filanca (talk

) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A few ideas: Ask for a

WP:DRN. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

see the section called "POV Pushing" for more background on this  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 If you are referring to this, then the other party does not need to accept an RFC if you do it on the article rather than the editor. Place an RFC notice on the talk page per the instructions here. Remember if it does not go your way, life still goes on. Rgrds. --64.85.217.110 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

( Facepalm) I forgot

WP:RFC, which is kind of Dispute Resolution 101. Thanks, 64.*. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the other party strictly refuses to bring the issue to any sort of mediation,

WP:3O may still need cooperation from the other side. Thank you all. Filanca (talk

) 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag

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

It's supposed to be populated with images that have been tagged with {{

nld}}. No clue why that's not happening. Nyttend (talk

) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

About a year ago, changes to the upload script made it very difficult to upload files here without specifying an acceptable license. As a result, I assume that essentially all files have a license on them (though the fraction with erroneous licenses might have increased). Once the backlog of unlicensed files was cleaned out, it is possible that there are essentially no unlicensed files left on Wikipedia. Of course, it is also possible that the bots or other tools looking for unlicensed files have simply stopped tagging them for some reason. So, my guess would be that the categories are empty because no files are being tagged {{

nld}} any more. I tried it out and it looks like the tag still adds the category, so I'm assuming it just isn't being used anymore. Dragons flight (talk

) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

See the "DumbBOT replacement" section of

WP:BOTR. Nyttend (talk

) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree the

WP:CSD to remove the 7-day waiting period for images that are uploaded with no source or copyright info at all. It is true that the number of such images, especially those with completely blank description pages, has dropped a lot since the introduction of the upload script a year ago, but a few such images still come through. In my experience, the number of potentially rescuable ones among them is absolutely negligible. If somebody goes out of their way to choose the old upload form to be able to upload an image without a tag, it always, always means it's a copyright violation. There's really no need to have all the bureaucratic costs of maintaining a waiting queue for these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼

16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Vandalism block

Minimalist, convenient technology does have its drawbacks. :) ·

✉

03:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

---

}

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

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

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

I strongly recommend purchasing a wireless keyboard if you plan to edit WP from a tablet. It will save you hundreds of additional keystrokes with that virtual keyboard, and you can always turn it off if you don't want to carry it with you.

talk

) 03:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

✉

03:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Forgot password, didn't register email address in preferences

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

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

I'm pretty sure you're screwed and will have to start over with a new account. There is basically no way to confirm you are the owner of the account at this point. I'd go ahead and provide an email address when registering this time.

talk

) 03:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

— 

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

As the others have said, it's most likely that you will have to make a new account. In the future, I would recommend that you establish a

committed identity. This may allow you to regain access should you lose your password. Mike V • Talk

19:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Both of you should register new accounts, in my opinion, and use the same computer as you'd used in your old accounts. That done, you should

request checkuser to confirm that the accounts are the same; if you get a kindly checkuser, you'll be able to have the connection confirmed. If that can be done, I doubt you'll have difficulty with getting a bureaucrat to do the usurp process. Nyttend (talk

) 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Anyone willing to follow

letting a rule prevent him from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. After all, if the checkuser can't say "I'm sure that they're the same person", either "I'm sure that they're not the same person" or "I can't be sure if they're the same person or not" will be the correct response; nothing more needs to be said. Nyttend (talk

) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Nea Salamis Famagusta FC

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

I agree that the article has to be moved, but an admin has to delete the

Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh

17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Page moved. As Zaminamina said, this kind of request is better filed at

WP:RM. Nyttend (talk

) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag

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

It's supposed to be populated with images that have been tagged with {{

nld}}. No clue why that's not happening. Nyttend (talk

) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

About a year ago, changes to the upload script made it very difficult to upload files here without specifying an acceptable license. As a result, I assume that essentially all files have a license on them (though the fraction with erroneous licenses might have increased). Once the backlog of unlicensed files was cleaned out, it is possible that there are essentially no unlicensed files left on Wikipedia. Of course, it is also possible that the bots or other tools looking for unlicensed files have simply stopped tagging them for some reason. So, my guess would be that the categories are empty because no files are being tagged {{

nld}} any more. I tried it out and it looks like the tag still adds the category, so I'm assuming it just isn't being used anymore. Dragons flight (talk

) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

See the "DumbBOT replacement" section of

WP:BOTR. Nyttend (talk

) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree the

WP:CSD to remove the 7-day waiting period for images that are uploaded with no source or copyright info at all. It is true that the number of such images, especially those with completely blank description pages, has dropped a lot since the introduction of the upload script a year ago, but a few such images still come through. In my experience, the number of potentially rescuable ones among them is absolutely negligible. If somebody goes out of their way to choose the old upload form to be able to upload an image without a tag, it always, always means it's a copyright violation. There's really no need to have all the bureaucratic costs of maintaining a waiting queue for these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼

16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Vandalism block

Minimalist, convenient technology does have its drawbacks. :) ·

✉

03:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

---

}

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

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

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

I strongly recommend purchasing a wireless keyboard if you plan to edit WP from a tablet. It will save you hundreds of additional keystrokes with that virtual keyboard, and you can always turn it off if you don't want to carry it with you.

talk

) 03:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

✉

03:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Forgot password, didn't register email address in preferences

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

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

I'm pretty sure you're screwed and will have to start over with a new account. There is basically no way to confirm you are the owner of the account at this point. I'd go ahead and provide an email address when registering this time.

talk

) 03:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

— 

^{(Je vous invite à me parler)}

07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

As the others have said, it's most likely that you will have to make a new account. In the future, I would recommend that you establish a

committed identity. This may allow you to regain access should you lose your password. Mike V • Talk

19:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Both of you should register new accounts, in my opinion, and use the same computer as you'd used in your old accounts. That done, you should

request checkuser to confirm that the accounts are the same; if you get a kindly checkuser, you'll be able to have the connection confirmed. If that can be done, I doubt you'll have difficulty with getting a bureaucrat to do the usurp process. Nyttend (talk

) 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Anyone willing to follow

letting a rule prevent him from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. After all, if the checkuser can't say "I'm sure that they're the same person", either "I'm sure that they're not the same person" or "I can't be sure if they're the same person or not" will be the correct response; nothing more needs to be said. Nyttend (talk

) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Nea Salamis Famagusta FC

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

I agree that the article has to be moved, but an admin has to delete the

Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh

17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Page moved. As Zaminamina said, this kind of request is better filed at

WP:RM. Nyttend (talk

) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Need a second opinion on a deletion

Yep, looks a good call to me too. Speedy deletion endorsed.

Bencherlite^Talk

13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I just deleted

WP:BLPCRIME—what is alleged to have done is pretty bad, but doesn't rise to the level of notability we require of criminals (plus, he's not yet been convicted, I think, so we can't even call him a criminal). An additional complicating factor is that all of the sources are in Chinese. Finally, the subject is a minor. If the article is likely to be deleted again at AfD, I don't think it's appropriate to undelete it for just that reason; there's no reason for potentially BLP violating material to appear even for a week in WP. But I don't want my judgment to just substitute for community consensus, so I'd like some admins to look at the deleted revisions and see if anyone thinks that there's any reason to undelete it. Qwyrxian (talk

) 08:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this article fails marginally under

WP:BLP1E. I'm not able to see the article, but had a quick Google about the event. The subject is only notable for this event and being the son of a notable figure, but notability isn't inherited. The deleition should stand. Blackmane (talk

) 12:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Request moved

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

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

Resolved

 – by

User:Bwilkins

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

User is currently indef blocked for having repeatedly and obstinantly re-created their biography, being warned several times about Conflict of Interest, and showing no intent to discuss the validity of having such an article. User proceeded to restore their non-notable autobiography on their talk page, overwriting the indefinite block notice, CSD notifications, AfD notifications, orphaned non-free content notifications, etc. I restored the page to before their actions today, but I request a reblock without page access as it appears that the user does not want to read the issues and resolve the issues. I attempted to use

WP:AIV to resolve this, but the friendly helper-bot truncated the message because the user was alleady indef-blocked. Hasteur (talk

) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ Hendrson, Green, and Cook, 2008, 374.